|
Doe v. Department of Mental Health
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 1997 ME 195
Docket: Ken-97-87
Argued:April 10, 1997
Decided: August 29, 1997
Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ,
JJ.
Majority: WATHEN, C.J., and RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, J.J.
Dissent: ROBERTS, J., and GLASSMAN and CLIFFORD, J.J.
JANE DOE, et al.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL RETARDATION,
AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, et al.
WATHEN, C.J.
[¶1] Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe, unnamed state employees, and
the Maine State Employees' Association, appeal from the judgment entered
against them in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J.) and in
favor of defendants, the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation,
and Substance Abuse Services and the Department of Administrative and
Financial Services ("Departments"). Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the court
erred in requiring public disclosure of the contents of a written arbitration
decision invalidating disciplinary action. Finding no error, we affirm the
judgment.
[¶2] The facts, as developed for the purposes of the summary
judgment, are as follows: In April 1996, Wrendy Hayne was killed while a
patient at the Augusta Mental Health Institute ("AMHI"). In response to this
incident, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation ordered an internal disciplinary investigation of the conduct of
the state employees at AMHI. As a result of the investigation, plaintiffs and
others were disciplined.
[¶3] As permitted by the collective bargaining agreement governing her
employment, Jane filed a grievance with respect to the imposition of
discipline. The arbitrator concluded that discipline had been imposed
without just cause and ordered all reference to the discipline removed from
Jane's personnel file. At that time, a request had been made to the
Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation by the Joint Standing
Committee on Health and Human Services of the Maine Legislature for
"copies of all disciplinary actions taken" as a result of Hayne's death. To
prevent the disclosure of the arbitrator's decision, plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the Superior Court requesting injunctive and declaratory relief.
The court issued an order restraining defendants from releasing the
arbitration award relating to Jane Doe, as well as other awards to similarly
situated employees, pending further action in the case. The arbitrator then
issued a decision concluding that the discipline imposed against John Doe
was also imposed without just cause. He ordered all reference to the
discipline removed from John's file. The complaint in the Superior Court
was then amended to include John as a plaintiff.
[¶4] At the hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction,
plaintiffs informed the court that they agreed to the release of the
arbitration awards, provided the names and addresses of the individual
employees were omitted. The court preliminarily enjoined defendants from
disclosing the names but provided that the remainder of the awards, except
certain information protected as confidential by statute, could be released.
Intervenor Guy Gannett Communications, d/b/a The Kennebec Journal,
subsequently requested that defendants release the arbitration awards and
redacted copies were released and their contents were widely reported by
media sources throughout the state.{1}
[¶5] After cross motions for summary judgment were filed by all
parties, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and
intervenor. It declared that defendants could disclose the contents of the
arbitrator's decisions provided that patient information protected by law was
first removed. An appeal from the judgment was filed and the release of the
names was stayed pending the present appeal.
[¶6] The Maine Legislature has determined that public records are to
be "open to public inspection," 1 M.R.S.A. § 401 (1989), and, through the
enactment of the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 401-410 (1989 &
Supp. 1996), has mandated that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute,
every person shall have the right to inspect and copy any public record
during the regular business hours of the custodian or location of such record
. . . ." Id. |