At a recent meeting of the Maine Human Rights Commission, commissioners voted to find reasonable grounds to believe that Central Maine Healthcare (CMHC) discriminated against and retaliated against a pediatrician after she raised patient-safety concerns and a gender-discrimination complaint.

The commission’s finding follows a contested hearing in which attorneys for the health system argued investigators relied on stray remarks and an inaccurate timeline, and the complainant’s counsel said senior leadership reacted to her escalation of safety concerns with hostility.

The commission’s decision matters because a reasonable-grounds finding opens the matter to conciliation or further legal proceedings under Maine law; commissioners said the record showed at least a plausible link between the provider’s protected activity and the decision to terminate her employment.

Respondent Harper Weisberg, appearing for Central Maine Healthcare, urged the commission to affirm the investigator’s recommended finding of no reasonable grounds for discrimination and retaliation. Weisberg told the panel the employer’s “legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination” was that the complainant’s “souring of relationships with supervisors beyond repair … negatively affected the work environment,” and argued the investigator improperly relied on comments by nondecision-makers and an inaccurate timeline.

Complainant counsel Maria Fox pressed the opposite view, telling commissioners she was asking them “to follow the investigator’s recommendations on the whistleblower protection claim regarding her termination” and to find reasonable grounds on the discharge and retaliation claims. Fox described the November 14 meeting in which the executive allegedly told providers he might “shut the practice down” rather than continue to tolerate what he described as persistent escalation of concerns; Fox called that statement “direct evidence of retaliatory animus.”

Investigator Jane O’Reilly recommended no reasonable grounds on the claims about terms and conditions of employment but recommended reasonable grounds on the discharge and retaliatory-discharge claims after reviewing witness statements and internal notes that, she said, suggested gender‑tinged stereotyping informed how the complainant’s conduct was characterized by some staff and HR.

The commission split the legal issues rather than issuing a single blanket ruling. Commissioners voted first to affirm the investigator’s no-reasonable-grounds finding on the terms-and-conditions claim. They then voted to find reasonable grounds to believe the complainant faced discriminatory discharge and to find reasonable grounds that the termination involved retaliation for reporting discrimination and for reporting risks to health and safety.

Votes and formal actions
- Motion to adopt the investigator’s no-reasonable-grounds finding on the terms-and-conditions (gender discrimination in conditions of employment) claim: passed (motion seconded; Commissioners David, O’Brien, Douglas and Sanders voted yes). The investigator’s recommended no‑reasonable‑grounds finding on that claim was therefore adopted.
- Motion to find reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was discriminated against in her discharge (gender‑based discriminatory discharge): passed (motion seconded; Commissioners David, O’Brien, Douglas and Sanders voted; result: reasonable grounds).
- Motion to find reasonable grounds that the complainant’s discharge was retaliatory (retaliation for reporting discrimination): passed (motion seconded; vote recorded with Commissioner O’Brien voting no and the remaining voting yes; the motion for reasonable grounds carried).
- Motion to find reasonable grounds for retaliation based on reports of risk to health and safety (whistleblower-type protection): passed (seconded; commissioners voted in favor; finding = reasonable grounds).

What commissioners and witnesses said
- Harper Weisberg (attorney for CMHC): argued investigators had credited “comments by non decision makers” and relied on an “inaccurate timeline,” and urged the commission to “affirm the investigator’s finding that the souring of relationships with supervisors beyond repair … was the exclusive motivation for complainant’s termination.”
- Maria Fox (counsel for the complainant): said senior leadership’s handling of a November 14 meeting and subsequent instructions (report to the executive by phone rather than by email and a demand for loyalty) showed “direct evidence of retaliatory animus.”
- Jane O’Reilly (investigator): explained why she distinguished the terms-and-conditions claim from the discharge and retaliation claims, and said comments in HR notes and other documents supported finding stereotyping language in how the complainant’s conduct was characterized.
- Commissioner David (during deliberations): said he was “sympathetic” to the view that discriminatory stereotyping could plausibly have contributed to the discharge decision and that the evidence met the commission’s “as‑likely‑as‑not” standard for reasonable grounds in the discharge and retaliation claims.

Next steps and context
The commission’s reasonable-grounds findings mean the matter will be referred to the agency’s conciliation process. If conciliation fails, the complainant and respondent may progress to a subsequent stage under Maine’s enforcement procedures. The commission recorded that one commissioner recused from the case and that copies of investigator reports and submitted exhibits form the evidentiary record.

Speakers
- Harper Weisberg — Attorney, Preti Flaherty (business; respondent counsel)
- Pete Callahan — Attorney (business; colleague on Zoom)
- Maria Fox — Attorney for complainant (business)
- Jane O’Reilly — Investigator, Maine Human Rights Commission (government)
- Dr. Pianka (complainant) — Pediatrician (citizen/medical provider)
- Commissioner Ed David — Commissioner, Maine Human Rights Commission (government)
- Commissioner O’Brien — Commissioner, Maine Human Rights Commission (government)
- Commissioner Douglas — Commissioner, Maine Human Rights Commission (government)
- Commissioner Sanders — Commissioner, Maine Human Rights Commission (government)

Authorities cited in hearing record
- statute: 5 M.R.S. §46‑12 (motion language referencing investigative/conciliation steps), referenced_by: ["motion to adopt investigator recommendation; conciliation referral"]
- Maine Human Rights Act (general reference in hearing and motions), referenced_by: ["investigator report, parties' briefs, commission motion"]

Clarifying details
- One commissioner recused from this matter (recorded during the hearing).
- Parties provided a recorded November 14 meeting; counsel disputed the completeness and audibility of the recording.
- Investigator differentiated claims: no reasonable grounds on terms/conditions, reasonable grounds on discharge and retaliation.

Searchable tags: discrimination, retaliation, health-care, workplace, whistleblower, Central Maine Healthcare, pediatrician, Maine

Provenance: {"topicintro":{"block_id":"s4343","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Let's take the first case on the adopted agenda, and that's, doctor Pianka versus Central Maine Pediatrics and Central Maine Healthcare System."},"topfinish":{"block_id":"s8148","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"So the findings are reasonable grounds with the exception of finding number 4, which was no reasonable grounds."}}