Judge asks for more information in school district appeal of $70,000 payout

LACONIA — Superior Court Judge Mark D. Attorri issued an order Friday asking for further briefings from counsel before he would issue a decision in the Laconia School District’s appeal of a Department of Labor ruling.

The district is seeking to overturn a DOL decision and order to pay almost $70,000 to former business administrator Christine Blouin. In spring 2022, Superintendent Steve Tucker dismissed Blouin and the school board subsequently voted to terminate her contract on grounds of material breach, voiding a payout of her accrued vacation time.

In a wage claim before the DOL, Blouin contended the district had insufficient grounds to find her in breach when it terminated her, and her firing was a product of hostility toward her by the superintendent. The district countered that it was the school board, not the superintendent, who voted to terminate the contract and cited the list of reasons the board provided Blouin when it notified her of its decision.

The DOL ruled in favor of Blouin, granting her nearly $70,000 in a payout of her vacation time and matching damages. The district filed an appeal of that decision with superior court in January.

Attorri’s order asked each party to argue whether the DOL hearing officer’s framing — that “‘[t]he issue in this context is whether the Employer had reasonable grounds to believe the Claimant was in material breach of the contract when it terminated her’” — was correct and, if it was not, whether that merited “reversal or reprimand” by the court. 

“The order asks for more information about the case from both parties. We will be providing this information and await his decision,” School Board Chair Jennifer Anderson wrote in an email to The Daily Sun. A request to Blouin’s attorney seeking comment on the order was not returned.

At an April 10 court hearing and in subsequent briefings, counsel for the district argued the DOL reversed the burden of proof, imposing “upon the Board and the District the unlawful and unwarranted burden of establishing an exact record of its decision making” when instead “the question for the DOL was whether Ms. Blouin could establish that the Board’s decision was without rational support.” Laying out an argument that the district had a reasonable and “bona fide belief” that a breach occurred, it asked the court to overturn the DOL’s decision.

In court proceedings and documents, Blouin’s attorney asserted the DOL did not force the district to show proof behind its findings but rather agreed with Blouin’s claim that the district lacked documented support — and by extension clear reasoning — for its grounds for breach.

“There was no letter or memorandum to the School Board laying out the case for termination, no School Board meeting minutes, no record of a vote having been taken and no record of who was in the room when any vote was taken,” one brief states. “The Hearing Officer did not second guess the termination decision: he found a lack of evidence in the possession of the District at the time of the decision.”

In the interim order, Attorri gave both parties 10 days to file an additional briefing, and another 10 days for a response, based on his two questions.