A former Lincoln County Emergency Management director filed a wrongful termination suit Nov. 7 in Wiscasset Superior Court. Maury Prentiss served in the job from May 2021 to Aug. 9, 2024. He served as deputy director prior to his promotion. 

Prentiss appealed his termination to the county commissioners, but the appeal was denied. On Oct. 9, Prentiss sent a letter of decision to Wiscasset Superior Court. He asserted the "termination decision rendered is not substantiated by evidence." Prentiss says he was terminated without cause and commissioners failed to follow the proper five-step termination process. 

In the county commissioners' Oct. 2 appeal hearing decision, Commissioners Mary Trescot and William Blodgett denied Prentiss' appeal. In the written statement, commissioners wrote Prentiss as a director of the emergency management department received specific training on the county's anti-harassment policies, including prohibitions against sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. 

County officials received a subordinate's complaint against Prentiss on Aug. 29 alleging he made comments to her which violated the sexual harassment policy. According to the commissioners' finding of facts, "Prentiss allegedly twice used  a specific phrase suggesting the two engage in sexual relations.  The employee found the request unwelcome and told Prentiss such. Although, Prentiss denied using the phrase and knowing the meaning. He used  the phrase twice with regard to his subordinate employee. We find that in doing so violated the County Sexual Harrassment Policy."

The employee further alleged Prentiss made comments about her using a stripper pole and, on April 16, he professed romantic feelings towards her which she rebuffed. The employee alleged Prentiss retaliated by ignoring her, criticizing her work and acting in a hostile manner towards her. 

Prentiss hired Boothbay Harbor attorney Richard Elliott II after his October appeal hearing. On Jan. 14, he was asked about the claims made against Prentiss. Elliott told the Boothbay Register all the claims are "vague" and the county couldn't provide a hearing record. "So it's hard to understand what the actual claims are. We have no idea what anybody may have or may not have said. We can't properly respond because we don't know what the accusations are," Elliott said. "They should have kept a record, and they did not."

The two parties are now working on creating a "record" of events to present to the court. Elliott is seeking a trial on the facts and the two parties need to compile a "record" to present to the court. Elliott said a Jan. 16 deadline was looming for a record, but it might be extended.

Prentiss was placed on administrative leave on July 29 and instructed not to work or access county systems. County Administrator Carrie Kipfer discovered he allegedly violated the order by remotely accessing a county system.

"In sum, we determine the county administrator's determination was supported by the facts, and that Prentiss' actions warranted termination. We therefore uphold the county administrator's Aug. 9, 2024, termination," wrote the commissioners. 

In the legal 80B appeal, Elliott wrote the termination was in retaliation for "engaging in appropriate conduct while engaged in his duties, but which his superiors objected to because they had previously authorized the inappropriate activity." Prentiss alleges the commissioners' termination constitutues a violation of the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act by failing to follow appropriate procedure and proceeded without inclusion of a human resources official.

On Dec. 3, Kipfer had no comment on the case. "We do not discuss personnel matters or ongoing litigation," she wrote.

In a court document, Elliott requested an extension for filing the trial motion to Jan. 16, 2025. "Defense counsel has only just received the record from his client and described the same as an inch and one-half collection of documents. As such, plaintiff requests an extension for the filing of the trial motion and supplying the required record contemporaneously with the motion and allowing counsel to meet regarding the record."

Elliott believes the controversy is over equipment removal from one of the county's communication towers. "He (Prentiss) called them out for removing the equipment unilaterally, and in doing so, they (the county) broke the law," Elliott said. "They are punishing him as a whistleblower by bringing it to their attention."

Court documents also asserted problems with the county's investigation. Elliott claims the investigator should've recused herself because she was a "close friend" of one of the two complainants. 

Another alleged problem is the investigator was on vacation when the incident happened. "The two complainants investigated and had an 'ax to grind' with my client. When she returned from vacation, she just 'rubber stamped' their conclusion," Elliott said.  

Another alleged problem is a lack of involvement from the Human Resources Department as part of the investigation. Elliott claims no human resources representatives were involved until the appeal hearing. "The irony is human resources wasn't involved or notified until the very end, and then they didn't say anything during the hearing," he said. 

In summation of the complaint, Elliott stated in a court document: "The petitioner requests this court to overturn the decision in the petitioner's appeal to the county commissioners, order plaintiff's job reinstated, payment in full of all missed wages, and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate to include costs and reasonable attorney's fees."