SOUTH HADLEY — A federal judge has recommended that claims made in a whistleblower lawsuit can stand against a former general manager and engineer at the South Hadley Electric Light Department.
In a 45-page decision this week, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine A. Robertson also supported a motion to dismiss claims against the municipal utility’s board of commissioners, which is also named as a defendant in a complaint filed by SHELD electrician Robert Blasko Jr., who is seeking $750,000 in damages.
In his complaint filed in October 2015, Blasko claims former engineer Andrew Orr and former general manager Wayne Doerpholz retaliated against him for complaining about a long-standing pattern of intimidation. That includes an alleged assault by Orr against Blasko in December 2013. The suit alleges that Doerpholz failed to adequately intervene.
Blasko “claims principally that the defendants retaliated against him because he complained outside of SHELD, including, in particular, Doerpholz’s longstanding tolerance of Orr’s harassing, threatening, and, at times, violent workplace misconduct directed at fellow SHELD employees, including (Blasko),” Judge Robertson wrote in her recommendation on motions to dismiss claims filed by all three defendants in the case.
Orr resigned from his post July 22 while on paid leave. His resignation came two months after the board voted not to renew Doerpholz’s contract.
The judge recommended denying Doerpholz’s motion to dismiss Blasko’s claims of civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The judge recommended granting Orr’s motion to dismiss the civil rights claims, but not a claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress.
In his complaint, Blasko claims the SHELD board was negligent in its supervision, training, and retention of Doerpholz and Orr, both of whom were placed on leave in October 2015 while the board investigated the allegations of workplace violence and retaliation.
The defendants have 14 days to file written objections to Robertson’s recommendations. Failing to meet that deadline precludes any further review by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, according to the decision.