A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit brought by a Maine substance abuse counselor who alleges a state judge used his authority to sexually harass her, ruling that the judge is not shielded by qualified immunity.

In a decision issued Thursday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Samantha Pike, who worked with the Penobscot County Adult Treatment and Recovery Court (TRC), had plausibly alleged that Judge Charles F. Budd Jr. created a hostile work environment in violation of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

The court found that “Pike has plausibly alleged a violation of the equal protection right to be free from a hostile work environment and that right is clearly established,” and ordered the case to proceed.

According to the court’s opinion, the alleged harassment began in July 2022 during a mandatory drug court conference in Nashville, Tennessee. Pike claimed that Budd, who was the presiding judge of the TRC, followed her to her hotel room, pressured her to get drinks with him, and made repeated inappropriate comments over the course of the trip. Upon returning to Maine, Pike alleged the judge summoned her to his chambers, continued his advances, and made her feel intimidated.

“Budd allegedly stood close enough behind her to reach around and hold the door into her room open before he suggested he be invited in,” the court wrote. At one point during the conference, Budd allegedly said to another female TRC member, “I can see your undergarments from here,” making Pike feel further uncomfortable and unsafe.

The court emphasized that Budd held supervisory authority over Pike’s work in the treatment court and had power to influence her employment and client outcomes. “It is logical that harassment from Budd would have had a greater impact on Pike’s work than harassment coming from a less influential member of the TRC team,” the court stated.

Budd, represented by attorneys including Melissa Hewey of the law firm Drummond Woodsum, had argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clear precedent warning that such conduct would violate constitutional rights, particularly toward someone employed by a private contractor rather than the state.

The appeals court rejected that defense, stating that “Budd would be hard pressed to assert that he was unaware that his unwelcome sexual advances towards Pike would violate her equal protection right to be free from a hostile work environment.”

The panel concluded that Pike’s allegations — including that Budd followed her at the conference, made suggestive comments, summoned her alone to his chambers, and used his authority in intimidating ways — constituted more than “boorish conduct” and could reasonably be seen by a jury as creating a threatening and abusive environment.

The case will now return to the U.S. District Court in Maine for further proceedings.