The following summary is based on an opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Federal district court cases apply federal law and sometimes New Hampshire law. Their interpretations of New Hampshire law are not binding on the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Huard, an Allenstown police officer, alleged that the police chief and lieutenant demeaned him, subjected him to a series of unjustified disciplinary actions and undermined Huard's rapport with other officers. Huard alleged that in January 2008, he reported an incident involving "severe" misconduct by a follow officer, and he was criticized for the report. Finally, in November 2008, following an investigation of Huard's response to an emergency call, the chief recommended his termination. Huard requested a hearing before the board of selectmen under RSA 41:48.
Prior to the hearing, Huard observed that his name had already been removed from the Town's website and the publicly posted departmental organizational chart. The chief also stated publicly that no one in the department had more than five years' experience. Huard did. Huard concluded that the selectmen were going to "rubber stamp" the chief's recommended termination. During the public hearing, Huard objected to its "inquisitional" nature and, concluding that it was futile to continue, tendered his resignation before a decision could be made.
Huard then filed suit in federal court against the Town, the chief and the lieutenant, asserting several constitutional claims and state-law claims for wrongful termination and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state-law claims.
The elements of wrongful termination are: (1) that the termination of employment was motivated by bad faith, retaliation or malice; and (2) that the plaintiff was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn. Termination can be by "constructive discharge," which occurs when an employer renders an employee's working conditions so difficult and intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign. The Court ruled that Huard adequately alleged "constructive discharge," and the allegation of retaliation for reporting a fellow officer's misconduct satisfied the elements of wrongful termination. The result is that pretrial discovery was allowed to proceed on this claim.
The defamation claim, however, was dismissed. Defamation is the failure to exercise reasonable care in publishing a false and defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff to a third party. Huard claimed that he was defamed by the false suggestion, made publicly in several ways, that he had already been terminated prior to the public hearing. But the court disagreed, citing the rule that "the mere statement of discharge from employment does not constitute defamation unless the publication contains an insinuation that the discharge was for some misconduct." To hold otherwise would put an unreasonable burden on employers to provide an explanation every time an employee leaves employment.