Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury Selectboard, LaMotte, Oddy, Ruggles, Rust, Timson and Town of St. Johnsbury

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether 24 V.S.A. § 1233 permits a town manager to be terminated at will or only for cause. The court held that the statute requires removal only for cause and reversed summary judgment on the plaintiff’s wrongful termination, federal due process, and state constitutional claims, remanding for further proceedings. It affirmed dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim and the grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Holdings

1. Section 1233 requires that a town manager be removed only for cause; the phrase "at the will of" does not authorize termination for any reason without cause.
2. Because § 1233 limited removal to cause, Nelson had a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment and was entitled to notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard. The record presented genuine factual disputes concerning whether the Town provided adequate pre-termination and post-termination process.
3. Chapter I, Article 4 is self-executing and may support a properly pleaded action for due process protection; it can protect a substantive property interest against deprivation without due process.
4. Nelson failed to establish promissory estoppel because the Town attorney's statements were, at most, legal opinions and not a specific and definite promise by the selectboard to act in a particular way.
5. The selectboard members were entitled to qualified immunity because, when they acted, it was not clearly established that § 1233 required cause for removal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 24 V.S.A. § 1233 permits a town manager to be terminated at will or requires removal only for cause.
2. Whether the statute gave Nelson a protected property interest in his employment and entitled him to notice and an opportunity to be heard under procedural due process principles and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution is self-executing and may support an action alleging deprivation of due process.
4. Whether Nelson established a promissory-estoppel claim based on statements by the Town's attorney concerning termination only for cause.
5. Whether the individual selectboard members were entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by Nelson was not clearly established when they acted.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded