## Facts

- Leon E. Bard, Jr. worked for Bath Iron Works Corp. (BIW) from 1979 until his discharge on September 12, 1986.
- In 1983, Bard became a quality-assurance inspector reviewing shipping documents and test reports for incoming steel purchased by BIW.
- Beginning in 1984, Bard reported to BIW supervisors and on-site Navy inspectors what he believed were flaws in BIW’s quality-assurance practices affecting Navy contract compliance.
- Bard initially received generally positive evaluations, but later evaluations criticized his attitude and ability to work with others after multiple complaints.
- BIW counseled Bard, issued a written warning in January 1986, assigned additional help, and ultimately discharged him for deliberately restricting output and creating a nuisance.
- Bard sued BIW alleging retaliatory discharge and related theories tied to his reports about quality-assurance problems.

## Issues

1. Whether Bard established a prima facie claim under Maine’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) by showing he reported, in good faith, a reasonably believed violation of a “law or rule,” rather than only contract noncompliance.
2. Whether BIW policies or conduct altered Bard’s at-will status to create an enforceable employment contract limiting discharge.
3. Whether Maine should recognize a common-law wrongful discharge tort where the WPA provides a statutory remedy for the same alleged retaliation.
4. Whether Maine recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an ordinary at-will employment relationship on these facts.
5. Whether removal of the WPA claim from the jury docket and entry of judgment after Bard’s evidence required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed judgment for BIW on all counts.
- The court held Bard failed to prove the WPA’s protected-activity element because his complaints reflected concern about Navy contract/specification compliance, not a reasonably believed violation of a “law or rule.”
- The court affirmed summary judgment for BIW on the contract claim, concluding Bard was an at-will employee and identified no express or implied limitation on BIW’s right to terminate.
- The court declined to recognize a duplicative common-law wrongful discharge claim because the WPA supplies the pertinent statutory remedy for the alleged public-policy retaliation.
- The court rejected Bard’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in the at-will employment context presented.
- Any asserted jury-trial error was harmless because, even crediting Bard’s evidence, BIW was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the WPA claim.

## Legal Principles

- Maine’s WPA protects reports made in good faith of conduct the employee reasonably believes violates a “law or rule”; a belief limited to breach or noncompliance with a government contract does not satisfy the statute.
- Absent a clear, enforceable limitation on termination (expressly or by definite employer commitment), employment remains at will and may be ended by either party.
- When the Legislature provides a specific statutory remedy for retaliatory discharge based on whistleblowing, Maine courts will not create a redundant common-law wrongful discharge tort covering the same conduct.
- Maine does not recognize a general implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent constraint on termination in the ordinary at-will employment setting on these facts.
- Procedural errors relating to jury trial do not warrant reversal where the plaintiff’s evidence cannot support the required statutory elements as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld BIW’s judgment because Bard’s complaints concerned suspected Navy contract noncompliance rather than a reasonably believed violation of a law or rule under the WPA, and it further reinforced Maine’s at-will default by rejecting parallel contract, wrongful-discharge, and implied-covenant theories.


Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 590 A.2d 152 (Me. 1991)