2025 DNH 81
D.N.H.2025Background
- James Sullivan, a Detective Sergeant at Barnstead Police Department, was terminated by the Barnstead Select Board following a public hearing in 2021.
- Sullivan alleged his termination was wrongful and resulted from his whistleblowing about Chief Paul Poirier’s conduct, including inappropriate political activity and misuse of public funds.
- He filed seven state law claims and two federal claims: (1) violation of procedural due process and (2) violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The federal claims form the basis of the district court's jurisdiction; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on these claims.
- Sullivan claimed he did not have sufficient notice of the grounds for discharge and alleged bias by the Board Chair; he also challenged the handling of a "Garrity Warning" relating to compelled testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Due Process—Notice & Hearing | Sullivan lacked fair notice of specific charges, especially regarding mediation and refusal to testify. | Sullivan received notice of insubordination/refusal to follow orders, and had an opportunity to be heard. | Court: Procedural due process satisfied; claim dismissed. |
| Procedural Due Process—Bias | Chair Beijer was biased, not impartial, and refused to recuse herself, tainting the hearing process. | Board is allowed to act as both prosecutor and judge under RSA 41:48, unless bias precludes a hearing. | Court: No unconstitutional bias shown; claim dismissed. |
| Procedural Due Process—Garrity Warning | Board's Garrity warning was insufficient; Sullivan was forced to choose between testifying and self-incrimination. | Garrity warning and opportunity to testify/discuss allegations were proper; refusal could be considered. | Court: No due process violation as alleged; claim dismissed. |
| Substantive Due Process | Defendants' conduct was so egregious it "shocked the conscience." | Allegations amount to typical workplace conflicts, not constitutional violations. | Court: Conduct did not meet "shocks the conscience" standard; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (minimum procedural due process for public employees)
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (compelled statements cannot be used in criminal proceedings)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process "shocks the conscience" standard)
- Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16 (substantive due process requires egregious, conscience-shocking conduct)
- Cruz-Erazo v. Rivera-Montanez, 212 F.3d 617 (threshold for non-physical conduct as "conscience-shocking" is very high)