By Beth David, Editor
A US District Court judge rejected motions to dismiss the Vicki Oliveira wrongful termination lawsuit, allowing the case to continue. The lawsuit names Town Administrator Angie Lopes Ellison personally and officially as TA. Ms. Ellison had asked for the court to dismiss on several grounds, with the court allowing in part and denying in part.
In the complaint, Ms. Oliveira alleges that she was terminated as the Assistant to the Town Administrator because she spoke out about changes to historic town hall that Ms. Lopes Ellison was proposing. The TA and Collector switched offices and the proposal was to remove the counter to follow the Collector.
Ms. Oliveira told her husband, Wayne Oliveira, who was chairperson of the Historical Commission, and he spoke out publicly against the changes, and he contacted the Mass. Historical Commission about the changes to the historic Town Hall, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Buildings.
In the complaint, Ms. Oliveira contends that after she spoke out about the changes, Ms. Ellison treated her in a “personally hostile manner.”
Ms. Oliveira also contends that she was wrongly accused of violating a “duty of confidentiality.” She claims that Ms. Ellison told her to send a notice out to department heads, and then “scolded” her for doing so.
In August of 2022, Ms. Ellison told Ms. Oliveira that she intended to terminate her from her position. Ms. Oliveira became “severely hurt and emotionally upset,” and two days later experienced chest pains while at work. Her husband arrived as paramedics treated her, and he and Ms. Ellison “engaged in a verbal altercation” over HIPPA issues.
The next day, Ms. Oliveira received a termination letter that contained “allegations that were false, trivial and out of context,” according to the complaint.
Ms. Ellison also had a no-trespass order served on Mr. Oliveira.
“All actions by Defendant Ellison, as stated above, were motivated by malice, anger, and retaliation for Plaintiff’s communications and actions in regard to historic preservation of the interior features of Fairhaven Town Hall, and because of her marital association status with Wayne Oliveira, and their combined attempts to oppose the changes proposed by Defendant,” reads the complaint.
As a result, Ms. Oliveira incurred “substantial damages, including substantial ongoing financial loss and physical and emotional distress.”
The complaint alleges that Ms. Oliveira’s “protected speech” and her association with her husband were the motivating factor in her termination.
The complaint makes three claims.
Count 1: Violation of the Mass. Civil Rights Act (MCRA) versus Ms. Ellison personally and in her official capacity.
Count II: Tortious Interference with Advantageous Relations, versus Ms. Ellison personally. The claim is that Ms. Ellison knowingly and intentionally interfered with Ms. Oliveira’s “advantageous relations with the Town of Fairhaven, namely her long-term employment with the Town of Fairhaven.”
It also alleges Ms. Ellison did so with “improper motive and/or improper means”; and she acted with “ill will and actual malice.”
As a result, Ms. Oliveira lost her long term employment with the town.
Count III: Violation of First Amendment Rights, versus Ms. Ellison personally and in her official capacity. The claim is that Ms. Ellison interfered with Ms. Oliveira’s “protected speech and freedom of association with her husband under both federal and state law.”
The claim alleges that Ms. Ellison’s actions were in retaliation targeting Ms. Oliveira because of her speech as a private citizen and association with her husband. The termination is in volation of the Federal civil rights act.
There is no amount requested in relief in the US court, but Ms. Oliveira is asking for compensatory damages; equitable relief, including re-instatement or other relief necessary to protect her rights to free speech and freedom of association; attorney’s fees and costs; pre-judgement interest. In the original filing in the trial court in December of 2022 (the case was moved), Ms. Oliveira asks for $430,000: $30,000 in documented lost wages to that date; $300,000 in reasonably anticipated lost wages; and $100,000 for “hospital visit with medical treatment, stress with associated psychotherapy assistance.”
On January 11, US District Judge Denise Casper, issued a 17-page memorandum and order that allowed two motions to dismiss, but denied two motions to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.
Ms. Ellison’s filing last April asks the court to dismiss the case, citing six reasons, including that the town used “legitimate means to terminate” Ms. Oliveira; plaintiff fails to allege “policy or custom” in her claimed federal violation; her First Amendment rights were not violated; she failed to allege threats, intimidation, or coercion as required; the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; plaintiff fails to allege “actual malice” to support her intentional interference claim.
The court allowed the motion in part and denied the motion in part.
It dismisses Count I, which alleges violation of her free speech rights under the Mass. law (not federal). The court allowed that because the MCRA requires that the plaintiff show her First Amendment rights were violated because of a municipality’s policy or custom.
In her opposition to the motion to dismiss, “Oliveira does not offer any argument as to municipal liability,” wrote the court.
The court allowed Count III, the alleged violation of Ms. Oliveira’s First Amendment rights, distinguishing between a public employee’s citizen speech, “which triggers protection, and employee speech, which may be disciplined by the employer.”
The Court found that Ms. Oliveira spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.
The Court also found that Ms. Oliveira “pled sufficient factual allegations” for the court to infer that she was terminated based on her speech.
The court also denied the motion to dismiss the “tortious interference claim,” the allegation being that Ms. Ellison fabricated a reason to fire Ms. Oliveira, or created a “pretext.”
The court also denied the qualified immunity argument.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS [Ellison’s] motion to dismiss, D. 7, as to the MCRA claim (Count I) and the § 1983 claim (Count III) brought against [Ellison] in her official capacity, but otherwise DENIES the motion to dismiss so that Counts I and III survive as to [Ellison] in her personal capacity and Count II, the tortious interference claim, also survives. The Court also denies the request for qualified immunity of [Ellison] without prejudice.”
According to court documents available online, the next step is mediation, but no date had been set.
In a phone interview and email correspondence with Ms. Oliveira’s attorney, Philip N. Beauregard, he said, “The opinion speaks for itself,” adding that the next step is to prove it.
He said the case is, “All about pretext.”
Ms. Ellison would not comment on ongoing litigation.
•••
Click here to download the 2/22/24 issue: 02-22-24 FHS Banner
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal