Records related to investigation that led to employee's termination are part of personnel file and must be provided to employee

Law Reporter, Jun 2001

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Harding v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 765 A.2d 73 (Me. 2001).

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that records related to an investigation that eventually led to an employee's termination are part of the employee's personnel file and must be provided to the employee upon request.

Here, Harding, a Wal-Mart employee, was terminated after an investigation was conducted by a loss prevention supervisor. After the investigation, the supervisor kept related internal investigative records in a separate file at his home. Wal-Mart later refused Harding's request to see the records. She filed suit against Wal-Mart under 26 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. (sec)631, seeking access to the investigative records. A trial court ordered defendant to produce the records, finding that they were part of plaintiffs personnel file. WalMart appealed, arguing that the records are not part of an employee's personnel file because they are not identified by name in the statute and including them in personnel files would be contrary to public policy. An appellate court affirmed.

Affirming, the state high court noted that the statutory definition of what is included in a personnel file is not limited to records physically included within a particular folder. Rather, it encompasses any records an employer has in its possession. Additionally, the legislature used broad category descriptors rather than an extensive list of specifically designated records to describe the contents of a personnel file, the court found. This broad language, the court reasoned, was sensible in that employment-related records may be given many different names. Thus, any attempt to identify each record by name would have been useless and could have led to an employer's avoidance of the statute simply by using inventive labels.

Here, the plain language of at least two of the general categories in the statute-records relating to an employee's character or work habits-encompasses the records at issue, the court said. Moreover, the court rejected defendant's argument that there are strong public policy reasons-including ensuring the confidentiality of witness statements and protecting employers from being forced to disclose potentially defamatory witness statements-to ignore the statute's language. The statute does not contain an exemption for investigative records, the court explained, and it is not the court's role to second-guess the legislature's decision not to include such an exemption. The court also disagreed with defendant's contention that the court should adopt the decisions of other states that have created statutory exemptions for investigative records. The fact that other legislative bodies have chosen to exempt investigative records, the court noted, does not support a reading of the Maine statute as containing an exemption that is not within its plain language. Thus, the records plaintiff requested are part of her personnel file and must be produced by defendant, the court concluded.

Plaintiff's Counsel

*Janet T. Mills, Skowhegan, Me.