Skaskiw and Vermont Volunteer Services for Animals Humane Society
112 A.3d 1277
Vt.2014Background
- VSNIP subsidized sterilization for low-income Vermonters; VVSA administered the program from 2006 until Skaskiw’s contract ended in 2012; agency responsibility shifted from Agriculture to DCF in 2011; VT-CAN! won the bid when the contract went for competitive bidding; Skaskiw alleged defamation, due process, tortious interference, and failure to discharge a mandatory duty; trial court dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation privilege and malice | Skaskiw alleged Smith made false statements; claimed lack of privilege and malice. | Statements were privileged in performance of official duties; any malice not pleaded. | Defamation claim dismissed; no pleading of malice defeating privilege. |
| Due process interest of a disappointed bidder | DCF’s bidding procedures created a liberty/property interest; Smith denied due process. | No protected due process interest; no entitlement to the bid. | No protected property interest; claim dismissed. |
| Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage | Actions by Haas, Smith, Maloney interfered with economic relationship with DCF. | Defendants were agents of the same government entity; no third party interference. | No third-party interference; claim dismissed. |
| Failure to discharge a mandatory duty; mootness | DCF mismanages funds; sought injunctive relief against VT-CAN! and mismanagement. | Contract with VT-CAN! expired; claim moot; no ripe relief. | Moot; no ripe or cognizable claim for mandamus relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Town of Irasburg, 2014 VT 43, 98 A.3d 769 (Vt. 2014) (defamation privilege and third-party publication considerations; malice not shown)
- Brennan v. Town of Colchester, 169 Vt. 175, 730 A.2d 601 (Vt. 1999) (protected government employment interest requires entitlement, not unilateral hope)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (distinguishes substantive due process from procedural rights; not applicable to bid process here)
- In re New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 2012 VT 46, 192 Vt. 20, 54 A.3d 141 (Vt. 2012) (recognizes protected property interests in government benefits with entitlement)
- Robinson/Keir Partnership, In re Robinson/Keir P’ship, 156 Vt. 50? (1990s) (mootness and ripeness principles discussed in mootness context)