$225,000 Settlement - New Hampshire Wrongful Termination Case

A New Hampshire employment dispute involving a long-serving municipal employee resulted in a $225,000 settlement after extensive litigation exposed procedural failures, misleading internal conduct, and a breakdown in municipal oversight.

This case highlights the complexity of wrongful termination claims, particularly when municipal budgeting protocols, chain-of-command authorizations, and internal documentation become the focal point of the dispute.

This case study explains how the firm navigated municipal procedures, uncovered key inconsistencies, and positioned the case for a favorable mid-six-figure New Hampshire wrongful termination settlement.

Case Overview

The client was a highly experienced municipal employee who had dedicated nearly two decades to a New Hampshire municipality. The client managed multi-phase building and maintenance projects and operated under long-standing municipal purchasing protocols designed to protect taxpayer funds and ensure transparency.

The dispute arose after a publicly funded building renovation exceeded its estimated budget due to unforeseen structural issues and the sudden loss of in-house labor resources — circumstances that required authorization for outside contractors. Although the client followed the municipality’s established purchase order procedures, senior officials later denied involvement and shifted blame, triggering a cascade of accusations that endangered the client’s career.

⸻

Key Facts and Background

The client oversaw a renovation project with a budget. Throughout the project, several issues required immediate action:

• Unforeseen structural deficiencies requiring engineering consultation

• The absence of in-house labor due to medical leave is forcing reliance on outside contractors

• Escalating material costs and safety compliance requirements

Municipal protocol required the client to submit purchase order requests for review and approval. Senior officials reviewed, approved, and signed these requests repeatedly over several months. At every stage, municipal oversight confirmed that expenditures were appropriate, necessary, and aligned with project demands.

Only after the municipal finance director disclosed the total expenditures to a higher oversight authority did political pressure intensify. Instead of acknowledging the documented approval process, senior officials distanced themselves from the authorizations, creating the impression that the client acted unilaterally.

Shortly afterward, the client was removed from the role under circumstances described in litigation as coercive, misleading, and retaliatory.

Legal Issues and Challenges When Pursuing a New Hampshire Wrongful Termination Claim

This was not a straightforward wrongful termination claim against a New Hampshire municipal body. The case involved a combination of:

Wrongful Termination

New Hampshire recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment. The client maintained that termination occurred because the client followed municipal purchasing protocols, the very procedures designed to protect the public trust.

Constructive Discharge

Evidence showed the use of coercive tactics, threats of adverse action, and internal misrepresentations that made continued employment impossible. Under New Hampshire law, constructive discharge requires severe workplace conditions that would compel a reasonable employee to resign.

Tortious Interference with Employment

The plaintiff alleged that senior municipal officials allegedly acted outside the scope of their duties, providing misleading information to the governing body and portraying the client as responsible for cost overruns, despite having personally approved the expenditures.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The client faced public humiliation, mischaracterizations of professional conduct, and the immediate disabling of access to municipal systems, all despite a documented history of compliance.

Why This Case Was Difficult

Public-sector employment disputes present unique obstacles:

• Internal procedures are often unwritten or informally applied

• Documentation may be inconsistent

• Political pressure can distort accountability

• Decision-makers may attempt to limit disclosure or preserve their own positions

The municipality’s attempt to reframe the narrative created factual conflicts requiring testimony, document analysis, and cross-examination of key officials.

⸻

Strategy and Litigation Approach

The firm approached the case as a document-intensive municipal investigation, focusing on:

Exposing the Purchase Order Trail

Every purchase request was traced, cataloged, and compared against the signatures and approvals of senior officials. This documentation confirmed the client followed protocols at every stage.

Deposing Senior Officials

Depositions revealed inconsistencies between officials’ public statements and their documented actions. Testimony confirmed:

• Senior officials knew costs would exceed the initial estimate

• Officials approved every significant expenditure

• No written protocol existed for tracking cumulative project costs

• Officials failed to inform the governing body despite a responsibility to do so

Establishing Bad Faith and Motive

Cross-referencing emails, depositions, and board meeting minutes demonstrated that political fallout, not misconduct by the client, precipitated the termination.

Positioning the Case for Trial

The case survived dispositive motions on key claims. The court ruled that claims of tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress presented genuine issues of material fact suitable for a jury.

At that stage, the municipality faced substantial litigation risk, reputational exposure, and potential testimony from multiple public officials.

⸻

Settlement of New Hampshire Wrongful Termination Claim

Facing a trial date, and after discovery exposed significant procedural failures and inconsistencies, the defendant agreed to pay $225,000 to resolve the case before trial.

The settlement included compensation for lost income, emotional damages, and the long-term economic impact of losing municipal employment late in the client’s career.

What This Case Means for New Hampshire Clients

Public-sector employment disputes in New Hampshire often require a deep investigation into:

• Internal approval chains

• Municipal accounting procedures

• Decision-making authority

• Communications between administrators and governing boards

• The political environment surrounding the employment action

This case demonstrates several important lessons:

• Municipal employees can face termination for reasons unrelated to performance, particularly during public controversy.

• Documentation matters. Purchase orders, e-mails, and protocols can make or break a case.

• Constructive discharge claims are viable when internal pressure and coercive tactics render continued employment unreasonable.

• Experienced litigation counsel is essential when dealing with public-sector employers, unwritten procedures, and political fallout.

How Our Firm Handles Cases Like This

Employment disputes involving New Hampshire businesses require a disciplined, evidence-driven approach. Apis Law conducts detailed examinations of protocols, financial records, and internal communications to identify inconsistencies and expose pretext.

Attorney Diaz brings over two decades of litigation experience to cases involving public-sector employment, constructive discharge, and termination disputes throughout New Hampshire, including Goffstown, Manchester, and the surrounding regions.

Potential clients facing similar circumstances are invited to contact the firm for a confidential consultation to discuss their situation and options.

FAQ - Wrongful Termination