Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Hillsborough-northern judicial district No. 2011-516 SUSAN JEFFERY v. CITY OF NASHUA Argued: March 13, 2012 Opinion Issued: June 12, 2012 Molan, Milner & Krupski, PLLC, of Concord (Richard E. Molan on the brief, and John S. Krupski orally), for the plaintiff. Jackson Lewis LLP, of Portsmouth (Debra Weiss Ford and Elizabeth J. Baker on the brief, and Ms. Baker orally), for the defendant. CONBOY, J. The plaintiff, Susan Jeffery, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Tucker, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the City of Nashua (City), on her wrongful discharge and breach of contract claims. We affirm. The following facts are drawn from the record. In 1977, the plaintiff began working in the City's payroll department. In or around 1998, she became the City's risk manager. In 2004, the plaintiff became concerned that

her direct supervisor, Maureen Lemieux, did not understand the budgetary process because "she wanted to level fund the health line items" in the City's 2005 fiscal year budget. The plaintiff raised her concerns with Lemieux "dozens of times," but Lemieux responded that "she was comfortable with her numbers." In April 2005, the City discovered that the health insurance line item was underfunded. Consequently, the Board of Aldermen convened an ad hoc health care budget committee to investigate the circumstances leading up to the shortfall. The plaintiff alleges that between her two interviews with the committee, she was summoned to a meeting with the mayor, at which he asked her whether she, as department manager, should be held responsible for the budget shortfall. The plaintiff refused to accept responsibility, explaining that she had tried to prevent the error by raising her concerns with Lemieux and others. The plaintiff also alleges that on a separate occasion, the mayor suggested that they "all share the blame," but she refused his suggestion. In November 2005, the committee issued its final report, concluding that the City's budget shortfall was a consequence of its insufficient "long term experience with self funded Health Insurance account" and its lack of training and educational opportunities for staff. In the report, the committee also made specific recommendations, some of which were the plaintiff's responsibility to implement as risk manager. The plaintiff did not implement all of the committee's recommendations. At some point in 2005, the plaintiff noticed that her relationship with Lemieux was becoming strained. Although she concedes Lemieux never said or did "anything" to her, she contends that "things were very tense." As a result, she became fearful that she would be discharged. In February and March 2006, the plaintiff received two written warnings from Lemieux. Prior to these warnings, she had never been "written up" in her twenty-nine years of employment with the City. Following the second warning, the risk management department was reorganized and some of the plaintiff's job duties and supervisory responsibilities were shifted to the newly created position of deputy risk manager. In June 2006, Lemieux conducted the plaintiff's performance evaluation, wherein she noted several areas requiring improvement. Consequently, Lemieux denied the plaintiff a raise. In September 2006, the City learned that checks totaling almost one million dollars were left unsecured in the plaintiff's department, in violation of the City's Cash Control and Handling Policy. As a result, she was placed on a one week unpaid disciplinary suspension. In addition, she was demoted from risk manager to employee benefits specialist. Shortly after being notified of these latest disciplinary actions, the plaintiff took a leave of absence under the

2

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), see 29 U.S.C.

Download 2011-516, Susan Jeffery v. City of Nashua.pdf

New Hampshire Law