Lexplug logoLexplug

Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1991 Me. LEXIS 119, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 721, 590 A.2d 152 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To receive protection under the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act, an employee must report an activity they have reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law or rule, not merely a potential breach of a private or public contract. Maine does not recognize common law causes of action for wrongful discharge or breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of at-will employment.


Facts:

  • Leon E. Bard, Jr. was employed by Bath Iron Works Corporation (BIW) from 1979 to 1986, working as a quality assurance inspector beginning in 1983.
  • His role involved inspecting documents for steel BIW purchased to fulfill its contracts with the United States Navy.
  • During his inspections, Bard discovered what he believed were flaws in BIW's quality assurance process.
  • Bard feared these flaws put BIW in non-conformance with its contractual obligations to the U.S. Navy.
  • Beginning in 1984, Bard repeatedly reported his concerns to his supervisors as well as to Navy inspectors present at the BIW site.
  • Following his reports, Bard's performance evaluations became increasingly critical of his attitude and ability to work with others.
  • On September 12, 1986, BIW terminated Bard's employment, stating the reason was for 'deliberately restricting output and creating a nuisance.'

Procedural Posture:

  • Leon E. Bard, Jr. sued Bath Iron Works Corporation (BIW) in the Superior Court of Maine (trial court) for claims including retaliatory discharge, breach of contract, and wrongful discharge.
  • The trial court granted BIW's motion for summary judgment on all claims except the whistleblower claim.
  • The trial court then granted BIW's motion to strike the whistleblower claim from the jury trial list.
  • The whistleblower claim proceeded to a bench trial (trial before a judge only).
  • At the conclusion of Bard's presentation of evidence, the trial court granted BIW's motion for judgment, finding the evidence legally insufficient.
  • Bard (appellant) appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employee's good faith report of a suspected breach of a government contract, without evidence that the employee also believed a law or rule was being violated, constitute a protected activity under the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brody

No. For an employee's report to be considered a protected activity under the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act, the employee must have reasonable cause to believe their employer has violated a 'law or rule,' not merely a contract provision. Bard failed to establish a prima facie case because he presented no evidence that he believed BIW was acting illegally; his testimony exclusively focused on his fear that BIW was violating its Navy contracts. The court reasoned that a belief that a contract is being breached is legally distinct from a belief that a law is being violated. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Bard's other claims, reiterating that under Maine law, employment is at-will unless a contract 'expressly' and 'clearly' states otherwise, and Maine does not recognize common law torts for wrongful discharge or breach of an implied covenant of good faith in employment.



Analysis:

This decision narrowly interprets the scope of protected activity under the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act, establishing a clear distinction between reporting a contractual violation and reporting a legal one. It solidifies the requirement that an employee's belief must concern a 'law or rule' to gain statutory protection, thereby shielding employers from whistleblower claims based on internal disputes over contract compliance. The ruling also strongly reinforces Maine's strict adherence to the employment-at-will doctrine by rejecting invitations to create new common law exceptions, thereby maintaining a high bar for employees attempting to challenge their termination.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1991) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp.