The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
PENOBSCOT, SS. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. CV-01-154
ao \ i
DONALD L. ¢
i Ot
LAW LES ARY
Kathleen M. Boylan, MAY 19 2002
Plaintiff
Vv. Order on Defendant’s Motion for
Partial Dismissal
FILED & ENTERED
Foster Carpenter Black & Co., LLP, SUPERIOR COURT
Defendant APR 16 2002
PENOBSCOT COUNTY
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of
Supplemental and Amended Complaint. In its motion, the defendant seeks to dismiss
that part of the plaintiff’s complaint that requests the entry of a civil forfeiture against the
defendant.
“A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” McAfee v.
Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994). On a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be
examined "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth
elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief
pursuant to some legal theory.” Id. A dismissal is proper “only when it appears beyond
doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in
support of his claim.” Hall v. Board of Environmental Protection, 498 A.2d 260, 266
(Me. 1985). See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137, { 7, 755
A.2d 1064, 1066.
In the first (and unnumbered) count of her amended complaint, the plaintiff
alleges that the defendant unlawfully failed to provide her with access to her employment
personnel file. On that basis, she seeks imposition of a civil forfeiture and an award of
her legal fees. Title 26 M.R.S.A. § 631 provides that when an employer fails to comply
with the disclosure obligations created in that statute, that employer is subject to a civil
forfeiture of $25 for each day that the failure continues, up to a maximum forfeiture of
$500. Section 631 then entitles an employee to seek equitable relief predicated ona
violation of the employer’s disclosure duty and to obtain reimbursement for legal fees
incurred in that action.’
Here, the defendant argues that section 631 does not create a private cause of
action by which an employee may seek the civil forfeiture otherwise available under that
provision. In the motion at bar, the defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the
complaint to state a claim for attorney’s fees.
The existence of a private cause of action is a function of legislative intent.
Larabaee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, 486 A.2d 97, 101 (Me. 1984). An express
enactment of a private right of action is the “more likely” expression of the Legislature’s
intent. Jd. The other manner in which the Legislature might express its intention to
create a private right of action is through the legislative history underlying such a penalty.
Id. See also In re: Wage Payment Litigation, 2000 ME 162,97, 759 A.2d 217, 222.
In Larabee and In re: Wage Payment Litigation, the Law Court concluded that
similarly framed statutes that also govern employees’ rights against employers did not
allow those private litigants to obtain civil forfeitures against those employers. The
analysis supporting those conclusions applies here as well. Section 631 does not
expressly establish a private right of action to enforce a civil forfeiture; such a cause of
action need not be implied in order to accomplish the Legislature’s purposes, because the
Statute also expressly authorizes the employee to obtain injunctive relief (presumably, a
court order requiring the employer to comply with the provisions of section 631) and
attorney’s fees; the Maine Department of Labor is authorized to bring suit under section
631 and, under 17-A M.LR.S.A. § 4-B is the party authorized to seek a civil forfeiture; and
the construction of section 631 urged here by the defendant is harmonious with the Law
Court’s constructions of other related statutes, see Larabee and In re: Wage Puyment
Litigation.
' The relief requested in the plaintiffs amended complaint does not include injunctive
relief.
Therefore, the entry will be:
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of
- Supplemental and Amended Complaint is granted. That part of the first count of the
amended complaint seeking imposition of a civil forfeiture is dismissed.
(
Dated: April 15, 2002 cn | 4 WK
. . v .
Justicd, Maine perior Court