Fired manager sues county, two commissioners

Washington County commissioners' attempt to turn up the heat on their recently terminated county manager a week ago by pushing her out the door may have backfired, as the county and two commissioners have now been slapped with a lawsuit accusing them of violations ranging from breach of contract to sexism and defamation. And the county tumult could reach out to touch more than just county commissioners if Washington County's insurance risk pool decides not to cover the case. If that happens, taxpayers could be on the hook for financial reparations.

The lawsuit, filed on July 13, was only the most recent move in a rapid cascade of events that have seen Renée Gray fired on July 2 with a caveat that she continue in her job for another 20 days. That state of affairs lasted only one week, when a contentious commission meeting ended in Gray being ordered to immediately collect her belongings and vacate her office after her attorney threatened to file a lawsuit alleging she had been illegally fired.

Four days later, the lawsuit was filed, naming Washington County as well as Commissioners David Burns and Billy Howard as defendants. That same day, a Washington County superior court judge issued a restraining order instructing the commission to temporarily pause any further attempts to move forward with Gray's termination due to the lawsuit's claims that Gray could suffer "immediate and irreparably injury" from such an action. A hearing on the temporary restraining order is set for Thursday, July 30, at 1 p.m.

County Commissioner Courtney Hammond, who voted against terminating Gray, agrees that the issue has moved quickly but "I think they [Burns and Howard] have been on this idea to replace Renée for quite a while." Hammond had also refused to sign Gray's termination letter fearing the potential illegality of the firing. "Like it or not, you have to operate within the rules, [and if you don't] this is what happens."

The county manager saga began on July 2 when Burns and Howard voted to fire Gray after an executive session with the three commissioners and attorney Dennis Mahar, not the commission's usual attorney of record. It came on the heels of a long county financial crisis, which had been successfully managed by Gray, the county budget committee and the commissioners.

"I thought we'd gotten everything behind us, that we'd actually start being able to move ahead. Now we see that's not the case," Hammond says.

Only seven days after Gray's termination, on July 9 at the regular county commission meeting, events began peacefully enough with a handful of items to discuss, including Gray's usual report as county manager. The meeting took a turn when the public comment portion of the meeting was opened and Gray's attorney, Jeffrey Davidson, stepped up to the podium to read a prepared statement to the standing‑room‑only crowd.

He asked commissioners to reverse the termination or face a lawsuit as "it appears the County of Washington has violated Ms. Gray's legal rights in numerous ways." He went on to enumerate the possible violations, including acts taken by Burns and Howard to subvert state employment law by failing to give Gray a cause for her termination or the required time and opportunity to challenge the termination.

Davidson also noted Gray's firing came after months of county government financial mismanagement that had resulted in Gray's cooperation with the Attorney General's Office to investigate possible crimes by people within county government. During that same time period, he said Gray had been subjected to sexually discriminatory and derogatory language from Burns and Howard, including a threat from Burns that she'd be fired and a warning that Gray shouldn't "put away her waitressing skills." In response to the latter statement, many in the audience groaned.

None of the commissioners moved to grant Davidson's request that Gray's termination be set aside. Instead, commission Chairman Burns introduced a motion to have Gray immediately collect her personal belongings and vacate county premises, not to return. On a 2‑1 vote, with Hammond once again voting against the measure, Gray was asked to leave.

The crowd that filled the chamber's benches broke out in anger after the vote, with cries of "sickening" and "disappointed." As Gray proceeded to her office to gather her belongings, she was stopped every few steps by well‑wishers and supporters.

"I have a ton of support," she says. "I continually have people messaging me. But I'm not a politician. So I'm leaving the politics to the politicians."

Only four days after Gray cleaned out her office, Davidson filed the lawsuit. The 11‑page suit asserts that Washington County and Burns and Harris, both as commissioners and private individuals, denied Gray's rights by not affording her the due process the state requires when terminating employees, actions that also amounted to a breach of their contract with Gray. It also alleges that attorney Mahar had no authority to act as the attorney during the termination because he'd never been publicly approved as counsel, complicated by the fact that they'd inappropriately shared Gray's private personnel information with him.

In addition, the lawsuit cites sexual harassment and discrimination of the kind prohibited under the Maine Human Rights Act. The termination may also constitute a violation of the state's Whistleblower Protection Act, the suit states, as Gray was involved in working with the state Attorney General's Office to uncover improprieties on the part of the county commission.

Finally, the termination constitutes "intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress." Comments by Burns, in particular, the lawsuit alleges, have defamed Gray and "were intended to cause harm to the reputation of the plaintiff."

The lawsuit ends by asking for both damages and relief for lost wages, emotional distress and defamation, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

Both Burns and Howard decline to comment on the lawsuit but say their reasoning for Gray's termination will eventually be revealed. "I really do wish that I could tell the county's side of the story, but we've been advised over and over not to," Burns says. Howard agrees: "People should wait for the info to come out. Eventually both sides will be out."

For his part, Hammond has repeatedly said that he has no idea about the cause for Gray's firing.

Burns and Howard say they have not reached out for legal representation and are unsure what attorney will be handling the case for the county. Burns says Mahar is handling the "day‑to‑day" matters of county business.

The embracing of Mahar, who could not be reached for comment, seems to be at odds with state law that requires counties to adopt or appoint county officials as a full board. It does not appear that Mahar's use as an attorney for the county has ever been officially approved by the board, something which Hammond verified.

The board's regular attorney, John Hamer from the firm Rudman Winchell, says he didn't believe his firm had been contacted on the Gray case.

In fact, it will probably be the Maine County Commissioners Association, which operates the insurance risk pool covering the county, that will eventually assign a lawyer to the lawsuit to represent the county if the lawsuit is accepted by the association as a case acceptable for coverage. It was not possible to assess at press time whether the case had been accepted.

Although Gray's supporters had packed the room during the regular commission meeting on July 9, it appears that may be the only outlet available to them to protest her firing. Since the county has no written charter or bylaws, there's no mechanism for recalling or sanctioning commissioners for their actions. State law governing county commissioners also does not have a recall provision.

Hammond says the current turmoil couldn't come at a worse time for Washington County, as the board is just now gearing up to put together next year's budget. That's a task that has always required substantial input from county managers.

But that's not his only fear. "One of my biggest fears is that, because the violations made were part of state statute, the risk pool would not choose to cover us," Hammond says. "If they choose not to, we're on our own and could face significant financial liability. It's a concern I have."