Stone v. Irasburg, Town of
196 Vt. 356
| Vt. | 2014Background
- Linda Stone was elected town treasurer of Irasburg in March 2010; soon after, auditors reported accounting errors and tensions developed between Stone, the selectboard, and the town clerk.
- On April–July 2010 the selectboard (following advice from town counsel) demanded Stone increase her treasurer’s bond from $500,000 to $1,000,000 and sent a July 1, 2010 letter alleging mismanagement and falsehoods to Stone and to insurers/VLCT.
- Stone attempted to procure the higher bond but insurers requested an employer statement; the town declined to complete the employer portion and Stone could not obtain the bond.
- The selectboard declared the treasurer’s office vacant in late July 2010 and appointed a replacement; Stone sued seeking injunction, damages (constitutional and tort claims), and attorney’s fees under 24 V.S.A. § 901.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Town on all claims; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded—reversing summary judgment on: (1) Stone’s stigma-plus (procedural due process) claim and (2) defamation; affirming summary judgment on statutory attorney-fees claim, Article 8 claim, and tortious-interference claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stone stated a stigma-plus procedural due process claim (reputational harm + tangible loss) | Stone argues the selectboard published false, reputation-damaging statements to insurers and caused her de facto removal by making bond unattainable, without an adequate post-deprivation name-clearing hearing | Town contends Stone had notice and multiple opportunities to be heard (April–July meetings, July 12 hearing), so due process was satisfied | Reversed for trial on stigma-plus: material disputes about adequacy/impartiality of post-deprivation hearing precluded summary judgment; pre-deprivation hearing not required for stigma-plus claim |
| Whether the Town must pay Stone’s attorney’s fees under 24 V.S.A. § 901(b) | Stone contends her suit to reclaim office was performed in furtherance of her duties and thus fees are recoverable | Town argues § 901(b) covers legal fees incurred while acting in performance of official duties (e.g., defending official acts), not personal suits against the municipality to retain office | Affirmed for Town: § 901(b) does not cover this kind of personal litigation to contest removal |
| Whether Article I, Article 8 of the Vermont Constitution (right to be elected) was violated by raising bond and removing Stone | Stone argued the bond demand and ouster subverted the voters’ election of her | Town argued its exercise of § 832 authority did not violate Article 8 and removal under the statute was lawful | Affirmed for Town: Stone’s brief did not contest trial court’s substantive ruling; court held Article 8 does not entitle a person to retain office in derogation of lawful bond requirement |
| Whether Stone stated common-law defamation or tortious-interference claims | Stone alleged the July 1 letter and communications were false, published, caused harm, and interfered with her ability to perform office | Town argued plaintiff failed to establish falsity/damages or necessary elements; for interference, the selectboard cannot be a third party to itself | Defamation: reversed for trial (material disputes exist); Tortious interference: affirmed for Town—no viable interference claim because alleged interferers were agents of the same employer (not a third party) |
Key Cases Cited
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (use of stigma-plus framework for reputational due process claims)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (stigma-plus doctrine and limits of reputational injury alone under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1900) (public office generally not a property right for Fourteenth Amendment purposes)
- Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.) (requirements and features of post-deprivation name-clearing hearing)
- Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.) (stigma-plus analysis; weight of private interest where termination affects future employment)
- Herrera v. Union No. 39 Sch. Dist., 186 Vt. 1 (Vt. 2009) (discussion of stigma-plus in Vermont context)
- LaFlamme v. Essex Junction Sch. Dist., 170 Vt. 475 (Vt. 2000) (procedural due process framework)