Daniel Barry v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services & a., 170 N.H. 364

Daniel Barry, a youth counselor at the Sununu Youth Services Center, was terminated after restraining a resident and allegedly failing to file a required incident report.
The Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) reinstated Barry, finding he did not use excessive force and that a report was completed, ordering reinstatement with back pay.
Barry then sued the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services and its director, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of RSA chapter 98-E for protected speech/union activity.
At trial the defendants defended on grounds that Barry used excessive force and violated reporting policy; the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
On appeal Barry argued the trial court erred by (1) refusing to give collateral estoppel effect to the PAB findings and (2) admitting defendants’ expert testimony on excessive force.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding collateral estoppel did not apply given procedural and remedial differences between the PAB proceeding and a civil trial, and that the expert testimony was admissible and helpful to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PAB findings that Barry did not use excessive force or violate reporting policy are entitled to collateral estoppel in subsequent civil wrongful-termination/retaliation suit	PAB findings are final and should preclude relitigation of those factual issues	PAB procedures, remedies, and burdens differ materially from civil trial; applying estoppel would be unfair and undermine PAB's summary process	Collateral estoppel not applied — procedural, remedial, evidentiary, and burden differences make relitigation permissible
Whether defendants’ expert could testify that Barry’s use of force was excessive and violated policy	Expert testimony was unhelpful or invaded jury factfinding and improperly opined on employer motive	Expert testimony was relevant to credibility of employer’s proffered reasons and helpful on whether reasons were pretextual	Expert testimony admissible under Rule 702 as helpful to jury; expert did not usurp jury role

Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peck, 143 N.H. 603 (1999) (elements and burden for collateral estoppel)
Tyler v. Hannaford Bros., 161 N.H. 242 (2010) (applicability of collateral estoppel is reviewed de novo)
Slater v. Planning Board of Town of Rumney, 121 N.H. 212 (1981) (courts may sustain decisions on alternative valid grounds)
State v. Cassady, 140 N.H. 46 (1995) (declining collateral estoppel where administrative procedures differ materially from later proceedings)
Porter v. City of Manchester, 151 N.H. 30 (2004) (availability of traditional tort remedies for wrongful termination)
State v. Labranche, 156 N.H. 740 (2008) (expert testimony admissible when it will aid trier of fact)