Lawsuit Against Maine Judge Resurrected By Federal Appeals Court

Stock image

A federal appeals court has resurrected a civil rights action against a former Maine judge.

The case against Charles Budd of sexual harassment was dismissed by Maine’s federal district court under a doctrine known as qualified immunity - where a civil right action under a federal statute limits what lawsuits can continue based on cases decided at the United States Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was originally brought by a drug recovery counselor who alleged unwelcome advances at a conference and in his chambers while she participated in a specialized treatment court in Penobscot County. She claimed this amounted to an Equal Protection Clause violation under the federal constitution.

Budd, while acting as a treatment court judge, oversaw the counselor’s work - along other court participants, such as attorneys - and could decide whether her employer’s contract with the court could continue. Budd and the counselor attended a conference in Tennessee in 2022 where she alleged several uncomfortable incidents. She spoke to others while at the conference about what happened and her supervisor on her return. An incident in his chambers also made her feel uncomfortable and she was upset enough to be told by others to leave for the day. She later brought a lawsuit alleging civil rights violations.

At the district court level, the case was dismissed by judge Lance Walker on the grounds of qualified immunity - that someone on his position would not have known his actions violated the Equal Protections Clause because it was not “clearly established.”  Whether or not Budd’s supervision of her work was one matter addressed for Budd to have notice that his actions violated her rights.

The federal First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which covers Maine, addressed three issues in the appeal. First, whether the counsel had sufficiently alleged he was acting in an official capacity as a judge (known as under color of law), second whether she had sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation (equal protection), and third whether Budd was entitled to dismissal of her lawsuit for the legal protection by state actors of qualified immunity - a much criticized doctrine that is not based on anything in the federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983) allowing lawsuits.

On the first issue, the First Circuit said he was a judge with supervisory responsibility and this interfered with his claimed purely private pursuit of the counselor to allege that he was acting in an official capacity. On the second, it said that while sex-based discrimination had never been addressed by the Supreme Court in the context of section 1983 actions, the First Circuit has said that hostile work environment claims have been when sufficiently severe or pervasive and based on a person’s sex. This addressed the third issue - whether the right was clearly established and, if not, whether Budd was entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit said it was and that he was not.

The First Circuit vacated the dismissal of the case and remanded it back to the district court for the case to continue.

Budd is no longer a judge. He was publicly admonished by the Maine Board of Bar Overseers but otherwise faced no discipline.