$145,000 Settlement in a New Hampshire Whistleblower Retaliation Case

This New Hampshire employment case involved a client forced out of a position at a healthcare employer operating a secured treatment setting after reporting safety concerns and resisting retaliatory targeting by management. Despite the employer’s aggressive defense and the involvement of a large Boston law firm, the case resolved at mediation for $145,000.

This matter illustrates how constructive discharge, wrongful termination, and statutory whistleblower retaliation cases in New Hampshire intersect—and how skilled litigation strategy can overcome the hurdles these claims often present.

Overview: New Hampshire Whistleblower Retaliation Case and Wrongful Termination

The client served as a management-level employee for a New Hampshire healthcare employer responsible for operating a secure treatment setting. The role required professionalism, regulatory compliance, attention to safety, and the consistent enforcement of policies in an environment where supervision and oversight were paramount.

From the outset, the client performed the job with integrity and diligence. Those very qualities, however, placed the client in direct conflict with a supervisor who resisted accountability, ignored safety obligations, and responded aggressively when concerns were raised. The client did what the law encourages: reported safety risks up the chain, followed internal protocols, and refused to ignore conduct that compromised the employer’s responsibilities.

Shortly thereafter, a pattern of retaliation emerged—culminating in a forced resignation. This lawsuit followed.

⸻

Key Facts and Background of Employment

The employer operated a secure treatment setting that required enhanced safety protocols, consistent oversight, and careful adherence to regulatory obligations. The client reported safety-related concerns through the employer’s internal reporting channels. These concerns directly implicated supervisory decisions and created tension with a superior who was unwilling to accept scrutiny.

After the client reported the issues to upper management, the client complained that their supervisor initiated a campaign of retaliation:

• Baseless allegations of policy violations

• Attempts to isolate the client from workplace resources

• Sudden changes in expectations and criticism unsupported by documentation

• A formal written corrective action unsupported by facts

• Conduct designed to make continued employment intolerable

The client eventually required medical leave due to the escalating hostility and retaliatory pressure. During leave, the employer took steps inconsistent with company policy, creating further uncertainty about the client’s job security and access to essential workplace tools. At the same time, information emerged suggesting the employer had already begun preparing to replace the client.

By February 2023, it became clear that remaining in the environment was untenable. Through counsel, the client submitted a resignation that was explicitly grounded in New Hampshire whistleblower and wrongful termination laws.

Legal Issues and Challenges

This case presented several overlapping but distinct legal challenges, each with its own hurdles.

Constructive Discharge

Constructive discharge requires showing that the employer made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign. It is a high bar under New Hampshire law and often aggressively contested by employers.

In this case, the employer argued:

• The client resigned voluntarily

• Internal discipline was justified

• No retaliatory motives existed

• The employer acted within its managerial discretion

Large corporate defendants routinely rely on these arguments to undermine constructive discharge claims, often banking on the difficulties plaintiffs face overcoming them.

Wrongful Termination

Wrongful termination in New Hampshire requires showing:

1. The termination (or constructive termination) resulted from the client performing an act encouraged by public policy.

2. The termination would jeopardize that public policy.

Here, the client reported safety concerns that implicated the employer’s obligations regarding a secure treatment environment. This public-policy component was strong, but the employer still contested causation and intent—common defense tactics in cases involving internal reporting.

Whistleblower Retaliation (RSA 275-E)

This statutory claim provided critical leverage because it:

• Allows recovery of attorney’s fees

• Shifts the litigation risk to the employer

• Provides additional remedies if the employer retaliates against an employee for reporting violations

The employer pushed back hard, disputing the client’s whistleblower status and insisting the actions taken were unrelated to protected activity.

Defense Tactics in New Hampshire Wrongful Termination and Whistleblower Retaliation Case

As is typical in cases involving substantial corporate defendants, the employer retained a large Boston-based defense firm. Their strategy reflected a familiar pattern:

• Voluminous written discovery

• Aggressive positional posturing

• A paper-heavy approach designed to exhaust the plaintiff

• Indications of early intent to file motions to dismiss or for summary judgment

This approach is meant to intimidate plaintiffs and increase the cost and burden of litigation. Instead, it backfired—reinforcing the employer’s exposure and the value of the client’s claims.

Strategy and Litigation Approach

To protect the client’s rights and maintain leverage, counsel employed a multi-layered strategy:

Anchoring the Employment Case in a Strong Statutory Claim

RSA 275-E, New Hampshire’s Whistleblower Protection Act, provides fee-shifting. This is crucial in employment litigation because it:

• Levels the financial playing field

• Increases the employer’s risk if the plaintiff survives early motions

• Deters unnecessary procedural aggression

From the outset, the whistleblower claim served as the backbone of the litigation.

Ensuring the Case Stayed “In the Courtroom”

Defense firms often attempt to win these cases via:

• Motion to dismiss

• Summary judgment

Surviving those motions is the real pressure point for employers. Once a case moves past the preliminary stages, corporate defendants face:

• Escalating attorney’s fees

• Damage to internal credibility

• Risks associated with depositions and document production

• The possibility of trial exposure

The pleadings and factual framing were crafted to make dismissal unlikely and summary judgment risky, thereby increasing the employer’s incentive to mediate.

Presenting a Sympathetic, Credible Plaintiff

Jurors respond to human stories—especially stories of conscientious employees punished for doing the right thing.

Here, the client:

• Followed the rules

• Reported safety concerns appropriately

• Acted in the employer’s best interest

• Suffered retaliation for adhering to professional standards

This narrative created significant jury risk for the employer. In employment cases, story strength often determines settlement posture. This case had compelling narrative power.

Outcome and Resolution of Wrongful Termination and Whistleblower Retaliation Case

The case resolved at mediation for $145,000.

From the plaintiff's point of view, the result reflected:

• The strength of the client’s whistleblower claim

• The employer’s litigation risk

• The difficulty the defense faced in overcoming the constructive discharge narrative

• The pressure the fee-shifting statute placed on the employer

• The looming cost of continued litigation

As always, past results do not guarantee future outcomes, and every case depends on its individual facts. Still, the resolution demonstrates how a well-structured employment case can overcome large corporate defense strategies and achieve meaningful compensation.

What This Case Means for New Hampshire Clients in Wrongful Termination and Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

This case provides important lessons for employees facing retaliation or forced resignation.

A Statutory Claim With Fee-Shifting Can Change Everything

Experienced plaintiff-side employment lawyers look for at least one claim—like RSA 275-E—that awards attorney’s fees. Without this, employers often try to outspend plaintiffs. With fee-shifting, the playing field becomes dramatically level.

The Goal Is to Stay in the Courtroom

Surviving a motion to dismiss or summary judgment dramatically increases settlement leverage. Employers, huge corporate entities, do not want to risk:

• Trials

• Public exposure

• Expensive discovery

• Fee awards

A well-pleaded complaint and strong factual foundation place meaningful pressure on defendants.

A Sympathetic, Credible Plaintiff Matters

Jurors respond to fairness. They react to integrity. And they respond to employees who are punished for doing the right thing.

This client had a compelling narrative. That matters.

Large Corporate Defendants Try to “Paper You to Death”

Big Boston firms are retained to overwhelm plaintiffs with procedural pressure, but when a case is properly built, that strategy loses its power.

Early Legal Intervention Is Key

The sooner an employee consults counsel, the better their protected activity and retaliation timeline can be documented, which significantly strengthens their eventual legal posture.

How Our Firm Handles Employment Cases Like This

Apis Law approaches New Hampshire whistleblower, wrongful termination, and constructive discharge cases with the seriousness they deserve. The firm conducts thorough factual investigations, prepares for litigation from the outset, and resists the pressure tactics often employed by corporate defense firms.

Attorney Keith F. Diaz brings over two decades of New Hampshire litigation experience, ensuring that each case is strategically positioned to withstand early motion practice and maximize leverage at mediation or trial.

If you are experiencing retaliation, forced resignation, or wrongful termination in New Hampshire, legal guidance early in the process is critical.

FAQ - Employment Litigation