Opinion ID: 4503038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaints Regarding Treatment of Cutler

Text: [¶41] In addition to Pushard’s direct complaints of understaffing and related safety concerns made to the administrator, Harper, he also complained about the mistreatment of his assistant director of nursing, Colleen Cutler, after she complained about the same staffing problems. Pushard told Harper that he believed that Harper’s mistreatment of Cutler was in retaliation for her complaints about staffing problems. Pushard complained to Harper that he thought Harper had taken away Cutler’s office in retaliation for Cutler’s complaints about Harper’s staffing practices. When Pushard moved Cutler into his office, Harper told Pushard that he disapproved of the move. The complaint 21 regarding the mistreatment of his assistant who joined him in his complaints is part and parcel of Pushard’s complaints about the staffing levels at Riverview. The action taken by the administration against Cutler must be considered along with her relationship to Pushard; the content of her complaints, which were the same as Pushard’s complaints; and the administration’s displeasure with Pushard’s attempt to support his assistant. [¶42] On these facts, a jury could find that Pushard was involved in protected activity. See Cormier, 2015 ME 161, ¶¶ 9, 16, 129 A.3d 944. A jury could easily infer that Pushard was engaged in protected activity because his complaints were related to patient and employee safety and the complaints involved Riverview’s failure to comply with the consent decree. Pushard has raised issues surrounding the question of protected activity that should be submitted to a jury.