BANGOR – David Bishop was described as a skilled field technician who fell behind productivity standards set by his employer, Bell Atlantic Corp., during the second day of a civil trial in Bangor.

Performance reviews as early as 1994 described Bishop as an able splice service technician, a person who dealt with equipment repairs and installation, and that he had special capabilities in on-the-job administration and communication.

Yet long before tensions mounted between Bishop and his employer, his reviews indicated he was working too slowly and that his rate of completion of certain jobs fell below company standards. A 1996 job review indicated he was “below target” in three of five work areas. Still, court testimony from supervisors revealed Bishop, a 13-year-employee, apparently was not reprimanded for his reported slowness until after he filed discrimination complaints against Bell Atlantic with the Maine Human Rights Commission starting in 1997.

The second day of a civil trial brought out conflicting testimony in a case pitting Bishop against the communications magnate.

The jury trial is taking place at U.S. District Court in Bangor, with U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal presiding.

Bishop, 39, of Hancock claims Bell Atlantic, now known as Verizon, retaliated against him and subjected him to adverse employment actions after he filed three claims with the MHRC. The human rights panel dismissed the claims after a hearing, yet bad feelings apparently remained, according to court testimony Tuesday.

Bishop seeks punitive and compensatory damages although no money amount has been specified. He is represented by Bangor attorney Martha Temple.

Bell Atlantic denies the lawsuit allegations. The corporation is represented by Boston attorneys Stephen Reed and Barry Guryan.

Much of Tuesday’s testimony from company supervisors dealt with Bishop’s evaluations and actions they took after a physical altercation that apparently occurred between Bishop and a supervisor in May 1997.

The skirmish, which resulted in the police being called by Bishop, is not part of the trial, according to Reed. However, it appears to be the basis for actions and reactions that affect Bishop’s employment status today.

Three months after Bishop’s fight with supervisor Frank Szylvian, the lineman filed his first human rights complaint.

During that time, a high-level supervisor testified that he ordered a psychological examination of Bishop because he was concerned with the potential for violence.

Under questioning from Temple, Michael Dunphy, area operations manager for construction, said he sent Bishop to Boston for an appointment with the company’s employment assistance program manager. He said Joan Kennedy of the EAP program told him to “monitor” the situation and to contact her if it worsened. Temple had Dunphy read from a deposition he gave 10 months ago in which the EAP counselor said Bishop was not a danger.

Bishop was suspended for three days a year ago, but two supervisors gave different opinions Tuesday on the seriousness of his infraction.

Bishop allegedly “rendered a drop wire unusable” on a service call that involved telephone pole wiring, an offense that reflected inefficiency but wasn’t serious, according to one boss, a first-line supervisor for a while at the Ellsworth division where Bishop works.

Yet a higher-level supervisor said the infraction, which included severing through half of some supporting wire on a pole, merited the disciplinary action.

Another area of contention appeared to be the supervisors’ concern with the numerous hours of overtime Bishop obtained authorization to work. He usually ranked first or second in the Ellsworth office for hours of overtime, according to testimony Tuesday.

In one review, Szylvian read to jurors he told Bishop his “quality of work is nice but don’t ‘gold plate’ everything.”

The trial continues today.