MACHIAS — Renée Gray filed a lawsuit against Washington County and Commissioners David Burns and Billy Howard Monday alleging wrongful firing, after which the court issued a temporary restraining order reversing the termination.
The commission was ordered to take no further action to remove Gray after the court determined commissioners interfered with her state and due process rights, finding that Gray will be irreparably harmed should the termination be carried out on July 22.
According to the temporary order, the court found that the defendants intended to interfere in Gray’s employment by not giving her written explanation of cause, which is required by state law, or giving Gray an opportunity for public hearing.
In her lawsuit, Gray alleges that commissioners acted with malice to silence her “to conceal their own wrongdoing.”
A hearing on the temporary order is scheduled for 1 p.m. on July 30.
Washington County Commissioners Burns and Howard voted to fire Gray on July 2, with 20 days notice as required under her contract. Both are named in the suit in their official and individual capacities.
Commissioner Courtney Hammond, who is not individually named in the lawsuit, opposed the termination and has publicly supported Gray.
Commissioners first learned of the lawsuit last Thursday when, at the tail end of their regular monthly meeting, Gray’s attorney Jeffrey Davidson read aloud a three-page letter threatening to sue the county, along with Burns and Howard, unless they rescinded Gray’s termination by the end of the following day.
None of the commissioners made a motion to consider Davidson’s request.
Instead, Burns said that “since Ms. Gray has decided not to finish out the term of her office in a productive way,” he made a motion to pay Gray through the end of her July 22 termination date and put her on immediate leave. She was allowed to return to her office for her personal belongings, but told not to return to work.
Howard supported the motion, while Hammond opposed it.
On June 24, Burns asked Washington County Administrative Assistant Carla Manchester to schedule a special commission meeting for July 2. The only agenda item was discussion of personnel matters.
Gray, who was hired in June 2023, claims in her lawsuit that she was not told about the special meeting nor was she told commissioners would be discussing her termination in that meeting.
When commissioners voted to enter executive session, everyone except Calais attorney Dennis Mahar, who represents the commission, was asked to leave the room, including Gray. Then, according to allegations in the suit, the commissioners shared Gray’s personnel files with Mahar even though she wasn’t in the room.
Under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, a person being investigated or who is the subject of a complaint is entitled to attend executive sessions when their employment is discussed.
At some point during the session, Mahar left the room and invited Gray to join the meeting and she was asked to resign, which she refused to do.
No commissioner gave Gray any legal cause for her termination.
State law contains rules for termination of municipal and county managers and administrators, which include notice of termination, a statement for cause of termination, and a public hearing to hear from commissioners and the employee before termination is effective. In the complaint, Davidson asserts that because the commission did not follow the required procedure, the termination is null and void.
In the 11-page complaint, Gray asserts that Burns and Howard conspired to deprive her of her rights because “she was aware of certain acts of Commissioners Burns and Howard which amount to potential civil and criminal acts that they did not wish for the public to know, which could be discussed in a public termination meeting.”
She also asserts that the two commissioners have “violated public hearing and records laws on numerous occasions, committed financial mismanagement of the County of Washington and directed sexually discriminatory and derogatory language toward her and other females in county government.”
And, she asserts that the county is attempting to silence her because she is cooperating with the Attorney General’s Office investigation into financial management in Washington County, and is aware of “several acts that may constitute criminal violations of the law committed by Washington County through the acts of its commissioners and others,” which affords her whistle-blower status.
The 13-count lawsuit asserts violations of public meetings laws and Gray’s right to a public termination hearing, breach of contract, whistleblower violations, sexual harassment and discrimination, intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and violation of her due process rights under the state Constitution.
Gray is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the commission from terminating her employment, any and all lost future wages, reasonable damages for emotional distress and defamation, and attorneys fees.
While the commission is being represented by Mahar, on Tuesday Burns said by email he was still waiting to hear from the Maine County Commissioners Association risk pool to see who will be hired to represent Burns and Howard.
Mahar’s hiring came under fire during last week’s commission meeting when an audience member asked when the commission voted to change legal counsel, because he wasn’t aware of any vote to do that was taken during a public meeting.
In response to that question, Burns said Mahar was hired because “we’ve been challenged greatly within the last year, at least with great financial burden as far as attorneys are concerned. Using an attorney locally for half the price of someone out of Bangor or out of Portland, I thought it was a good decision.”
In her lawsuit, Gray alleges Mahar can not legally serve as counsel for Washington County without a public vote to retain or consult with him, and approval of spending money to do so. In the suit Gray also alleges that meetings Burns and Howard held with Mahar prior to the July 2 executive session were improper and designed to conceal an orchestrated effort to terminate her.
According to Gray, Burns and Howard regularly use their personal cell phones and email accounts to conduct county business. In the suit, she alleges that Burns admitted in text messages that he had met with Mahar prior to the July 2 meeting to discuss his plan to terminate Gray.
Contacted Tuesday, Burns reiterated that Mahar was hired “mostly because of the cost to the county and accessibility” to defendants, referring comment on the lawsuit to Mahar.
A message sent to Mahar Wednesday seeking comment was not returned.
