156 A.3d 147
N.H.2017Background
- Cluff-Landry was a Pre-K and visual arts teacher at St. Christopher School with annual one-year contracts renewed through 2011; a new principal was hired in August 2011.
- A defiant four-year-old student began exhibiting violent behavior in the 2011–2012 year; Cluff-Landry repeatedly complained to the principal that the classroom was unsafe and that the behavior violated the school handbook.
- The principal allegedly dismissed her concerns, then took adverse actions: replaced her with a substitute for a day, issued a letter of insubordination, placed her on a Teacher Improvement Plan, observed her teaching, and issued a negative observation report.
- On April 15, 2012 the principal notified Cluff-Landry her teaching contract would not be renewed for 2012–2013; her last work day was June 15, 2012.
- In 2014 Cluff-Landry hired a reference company (Allison & Taylor) which contacted the principal; the principal gave negative comments about Cluff-Landry.
- Cluff-Landry sued in May 2015 alleging: (1) violation of the NH Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (RSA ch. 275‑E), (2) wrongful discharge, and (3) slander. The superior court granted the school’s motion to dismiss; Cluff-Landry appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblower protection — whether complaints about student conduct qualify as reporting a violation of law or rule | Cluff‑Landry says she reasonably believed she reported assaults/unsafe conditions and violations of public policies (e.g., assault, DOE regs, workers’ comp) | School argues she only complained about internal policies/handbook, not laws or rules | Dismissed: complaints about internal policies or a four‑year‑old’s disruptive conduct do not objectively constitute reports of violations of law or rule under RSA 275‑E:2 I(a) |
| Wrongful discharge — accrual and timeliness | Cluff‑Landry contends claim accrued at separation (June 15, 2012) so her May 2015 suit was timely | School argues accrual occurred when non‑renewal was communicated (April 15, 2012) so suit was time‑barred | Dismissed as time‑barred: claim accrued April 15, 2012 when non‑renewal notified; limitations expired before filing |
| Slander — whether statements to reference company are actionable | Cluff‑Landry contends principal’s statements to Allison & Taylor were defamatory; argues no ‘‘invited defamation’’ exception in NH | School argues Cluff‑Landry solicited those statements by hiring the reference company, so publication was invited | Dismissed: invited publication (she procured the reference check) bars defamation claim as a matter of law |
| Slander — failure to plead other publications with specificity | Cluff‑Landry argues principal likely made similar statements to others | School argues complaint identifies only statements to A&T; other allegations are speculative | Dismissed for insufficient specificity regarding other alleged publications; speculative allegations inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanguedolce v. Wolfe, 164 A.3d 644 (N.H. 2013) (motion to dismiss standard and defamation pleading requirements)
- Appeal of Seacoast Fire Equip. Co., 146 A.2d 605 (N.H. 1999) (elements of whistleblower claim)
- Appeal of Osram Sylvania, 142 A.2d 612 (N.H. 1998) (objective reasonable‑belief standard under whistleblower statute)
- Nichols v. Metropolitan Center for Independent Living, 50 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 1995) (internal employer policies do not equal statutory ‘‘law or rule’’ for whistleblower protection)
- Kelewae v. Jim Meagher Chevrolet, Inc., 952 F.2d 1052 (8th Cir. 1992) (‘‘invited defamation’’—statements solicited by plaintiff’s agent cannot support defamation claim)