Winslow v. Cnty. of Aroostook & N. Me.

DENA WINSLOW, Plaintiff,

v. COUNTY OF AROOSTOOK & NOTHERN MAINEDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, INC., Defendants.

Docket no. 1:11-cv-162-GZS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Dated: February 15, 2013

ORDER ON NORTHERN MAINE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Northern Maine Development Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31). As explained herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a party is entitled to summary judgment if, on the record before the Court, it appears "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. A "material fact" is one that has "the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law." Nereida-Gonzalez v. Tirado-Delgado, 990 F.2d 701, 703 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248) (additional citation omitted).

The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). In determining whether this burden is met, the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences in its favor. Santoni v. Potter, 369 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir. 2004).

Once the moving party has made this preliminary showing, the nonmoving party must "produce specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form, to establish the presence of a trialworthy issue." Triangle Trading Co. v. Robroy Indus., Inc., 200 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation and internal punctuation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "Mere allegations, or conjecture unsupported in the record, are insufficient." Barros-Villahermosa v. United States, 642 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rivera-Marcano v. Normeat Royal Dane Quality A/S, 998 F.2d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 1993)); see also Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., 639 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2011) ("A properly supported summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, periphrastic circumlocutions, or rank speculation.") (citations omitted). "As to any essential factual element of its claim on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial, its failure to come forward with sufficient evidence to generate a trialworthy issue warrants summary judgment to the moving party." In re Spigel, 260 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Ralar Distribs., Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993)).

In the District of Maine, the parties are required to present the factual record for summary judgment in accordance with Local Rule 56. Having reviewed the statements of material fact and supporting exhibits in accordance with Local Rule 56, the Court proceeds to lay out theundisputed facts as well as any disputed material facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff in the following section.¹

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Northern Maine Development Commission

Defendant Northern Maine Development Commission (NMDC) is a legislatively-created, public, non-profit, quasi-municipal, membership organization comprised of participating communities and counties in the Northern Maine Economic Development District. NMDC provides federal and state services at the regional and local levels. NMDC also provides management and support to a variety of entities, including, Aroostook Municipal Association, Aroostook Partnership for Progress, Leaders Encouraging Aroostook Development, Northern Maine Finance Corporation, Momentum Aroostook, 2014 World Acadia Congress, and the Aroostook/Washington County Local Workforce Investment Board. Robert Clark has been the Executive Director of NMDC since July 12, 1990. Ruby Bradbury has been the Director of Operations for NMDC since 2000.

Unlike its Co-Defendant Aroostook County, NMDC is not a governmental entity. NMDC and Aroostook County are not commonly owned or managed. NMDC has no control over the County's staffing decisions or its day-to-day operations. In short, NMDC has no involvement or control over the operations of Aroostook County and, in turn, Aroostook County has no control or involvement in NMDC's relationship with its employees. NMDC does have anestablished policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability or any other category protected by applicable laws. NMDC employees receive a copy of the anti-discrimination policy and regular training on the policy.

The Workforce Investment Act

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 ("WIA") was enacted for the purpose of creating programs designed to: increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants in the programs; increase the occupational skill levels attained by participants in the program; improve the quality of the workforce throughout the United States; reduce welfare and dependency in the United States; and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the United States. States that are interested in obtaining federal grants for WIA programs must establish state workforce investment boards. The state board includes the Governor, two members of each chamber of the State legislature appointed by the presiding official of each chamber, and representatives appointed by the Governor. A majority of the board members are to be representatives of business. The remainder of the board members are to be representatives of chief local elected officials, labor organizations, individuals and organizations that have experience in the delivery of workforce investment activities and youth activities, and relevant state agency heads. The Governor, in his or her discretion, may appoint other appropriate representatives. See generally 29 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.; 25 M.R.S.A § 2001 et seq.

The Governor must also designate local workforce investment areas in which workforce activities are to be administered locally. 29 U.S.C. § 2831 (a)(1)(A). Local workforce investment boards, in partnership with local elected officials, are responsible for planning and overseeing the local programs. 29 U.S.C. § 2832. The local board is appointed by the local elected official(s) and must have a majority of business representatives, and includerepresentatives of education providers, labor organizations, community-based organizations (including those that serve the disabled and veterans), economic development agencies, and each of the one-stop partners. The local board may include other representatives that the local elected officials determine are appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 2832(b)(2)(B). The Governor sets criteria for appointment of members and certifies the local board. 29 U.S.C. § 2832(b)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 2832(c)(2). Each local area is to establish a one-stop delivery system through which core employment-related services are provided and through which access is provided to other employment and training services funded under WIA and other federal programs. The access to services must be provided through not less than one physical one-stop center in each local area, which may be supplemented by networks of affiliated sites. The programs providing services through the one-stop system are referred to as one-stop partners. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2841, 2864. The local board is responsible for, among other things: developing and submitting a local plan to the Governor for approval; selecting one-stop operators and providers of services; developing a budget and administering the grant funds (including the designation of a local fiscal agent); overseeing local programs; negotiating local performance measures; developing statewide employment statistics systems; coordinating workforce development activities with economic development strategies; and promoting the participation of private sector employers in the statewide workforce investment system. 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d).

The History of the WIA Program in Maine's Aroostook & Washington Counties

Maine is comprised of four (4) workforce investment regions. The Aroostook and Washington Counties Region (Local Area I), is the largest geographic workforce investment area in the state. The Local Area I Workforce Investment Board ("LWIB") has two co-Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEOs). During the time relevant to this case, the CLEOs were NormFournier, a county commissioner for Aroostook County, and Chris Gardner, a county commissioner for Washington County. Barry McCrum is the chair of the LWIB and has served in that capacity for over ten years. McCrum and the other members of the LWIB are volunteers and receive no compensation for their LWIB work. Since 2008, Robert Clark, the Executive Director of NMDC, has been a member of the LWIB. From 1999 until early 2010, Aroostook County was the grant sub-recipient for the LWIB. In that capacity, Aroostook County acted as the fiscal agent for LWIB and was unofficially responsible for the administrative and financial operations of the WIA programs in Local Area 1.

On March 25, 2008, Plaintiff Dena Winslow was hired as the Executive Director of LWIB. She was offered the position by Doug Beaulieu, the Aroostook County Administrator. She began work as LWIB's Executive Director on April 3, 2008. Pursuant to the job description in place during Winslow's tenure, the County Administrator was the direct supervisor of LWIB's Executive Director and completed performance evaluations for the LWIB Executive Director. While employed as LWIB's Executive Director, Winslow received benefits from Aroostook County as well as paychecks and W-2s issued by ...