The town of Peterborough has responded to the wrongful termination lawsuit brought against it by former recreation director Jeff King.
In a motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 18, town attorneys argue King’s employment was at-will and not by contract, therefore the town was free at any time to terminate his employment.
“On or about July 12, 2019, Plaintiff [King] was notified that an employee or employees had made a complaint or complaints about Plaintiff [King], alleging harassment. … Plaintiff [King] was placed on administrative leave pending the investigation of those complaints,” the motion to dismiss confirms.
The motion to dismiss goes on to say that despite King’s expectations, the town does not actually have to give cause or provide evidence of wrongdoing when firing him.
“Plaintiffs conclusory statement that Defendant must have obtained or demonstrated to Plaintiff the existence of ‘sufficient ‘evidence’ for Plaintiffs termination runs counter to principals governing at-will employment, and fails to set forth a cause of action that is recognized under New Hampshire law,” the town’s motion says. “Plaintiff suggests that, because every New Hampshire agreement ‘contains a covenant that each of the parties will act in good fair and fair dealing with the other’ and Plaintiff was Defendant’s employee for 16 years, the parties had an ‘implied agreement of employment.’ … Whatever Plaintiffs subjective expectations may have been, such thoughts or feelings would not be sufficient to change the at-will nature of the employment relationship.”
Yet, King, appears to admit in the lawsuit he filed that the town investigation found some wrongdoing, the town’s motion to dismiss says. “Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that Defendant made a finding that Plaintiff had at least one violated Town policy: Plaintiff asserts that ‘any violation of Town Policy actually proven to be true was… de minimis (a Latin term meaning ‘about minimal things’) when compared to [Plaintiffs] otherwise spotless record.’”
The town’s motion to dismiss also calls King’s claim to unused vacation pay unfounded. “Plaintiff does not allege that his ‘unused annual and accrued vacation pay’ was ‘vested.’ Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant had a policy or practice of paying unused vacation benefits in situations similar to Plaintiffs. Rather, Plaintiffs claim rests on the misguided notion that employers in New Hampshire must always pay ‘vested’ vacation benefits at termination. Plaintiff has failed to set forth a cognizable claim of entitlement to be paid for vacation benefits under New Hampshire law, and Plaintiffs Count III should be dismissed.”
As recreation director, King oversaw two full-time staff members, three part-time staff members and 43 seasonal employees. His annual salary was $78,561.
On July 23, Bartlett confirmed King was on paid leave. He said King would remain on leave throughout a review process into “concerns” that were brought to town officials about King. Citing it as a personnel matter he declined to comment further at that time.
After firing King on Aug. 19, the town released a statement regarding the matter on Aug. 20, “This action was taken after complaints made against Mr. King led to a Town investigation which uncovered failures to follow town procedures, protocols and training. This failure has undermined, in the Town’s opinion, his ability to manage employees, and as a result he is not in the position to lead the Peterborough Recreation Department.”
King filed a lawsuit against the town in October in the Hillsborough County Superior Court in Manchester. The court “action arises out of the wrongful, unlawful and unwarranted termination” of King from his position by his employer, the town of Peterborough, the lawsuit states.
He is also seeking “lost wages, employment benefits, loss of earning capacity, emotional suffering, loss of reputation, costs expenses and other damages,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit alleges, Deputy Town Administrator Nicole MacStay accused King of having a photo that is “prurient in nature” of teen girls by the town pool on his work computer. The online version of Merriam Webster’s dictionary gives the legal definition of prurient as “marked by or arousing an unwholesome sexual interest or desire.”
King’s lawsuit claims the photo is one of many King took “as part of his duties to post pictures detailing the recreation activities of the Town and its participants.”
King was hired by the town in April 2003, according to the lawsuit, which also said, “…prior to 2019, King received numerous accolades, congratulations and awards for the method and manner in which he ran the department and oversaw its employees.”
Then on July 12, “King was notified that a complaint or complaints alleging harassment had been made against him by a member or members of the Recreation Department.”
King’s lawsuit alleges he was “not shown or provided with a copy of that complaint” and was told “he had been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.”
Along with a jury trial, King is demanding damages from the town as well as his attorneys’ fees. King has suffered damages, the lawsuit says, including “lost employment benefits, emotional suffering, loss of reputation, costs expenses and other damages,” the lawsuit says.