Last year, on October 31, 2012, a jury awarded a state employee, Mark Jordan, a verdict (READ ORDER) of $150,000 against the State of NH for violations of RSA 98-E. That statute provides that anyone in government who interferes in any way with the right of freedom of speech, full criticism or disclosure by a public employee is liable for damages and attorneys fees. The state requested that the court set aside the jury verdict, but on April 26, 2012, the Superior Court upheld the jury verdict and ordered a hearing on attorneys’ fees.

The trial court ruled that the jury was justified in finding interference against Mr. Jordan, who was the head of the union that represented the correctional workers at the state prisons. The broad purpose of the statute is to protect government employees and provide a full right to publically discuss opinions. The claim at trial was that the Department of Corrections had interfered with that right.

If you are a public employee in NH and you think that your rights are being interfered with in terms of speaking out against government corruption or improprieties, feel fee to contact us. This was the first verdict received by a state employee under RSA 98-E so we have the experience to assist you if you feel you have a claim.

Anna Tilton and Andrew Christie were elected Registers of Probate in two of New Hampshire’s counties in 2010. On May 27, 2011, the Legislature enacted a new law that essentially stripped the Registers of responsibility for their jobs and cut their salaries from $55,000 to $100. They each received a letter from the state saying that on the close of work on June 30, 3011, you will be “laid off from your capacity as the administrative authority of the County Probate Court.” Their new position has virtually no duties and they are not allowed access to their old office.

The two Registers filed suit claiming a breach of contract based upon the elective office that they had run for knowing the salary for which they would be paid and sought relief from the court. The Superior Court said that NH Supreme Court has never before dealt with the issue of constructive discharge when an employee’s job responsibilities are all but eliminated but the employee does not resign.

The trial court cited federal decisions around the country as precedent for concluding that the two Registers of Probate were constructively discharged in violation of law. A hearing on damages has been scheduled.
(READ ORDER)

This is an emerging area of the law and the first case to so hold that if you have your title and a nominal salary, you still have been constructively discharged from your job. If you have been discharged from your job, please give us a call at 1-800-240-1988 to discuss or fill our on online Contact Form to see if you have a case.