Carol St. Pierre v. School Administrative Unit 28 Windham School District & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0540, Carol St. Pierre v. School
Administrative Unit 28 Windham School District & a., the court
on June 8, 2018, issued the following order:
The joint motion to allow the appendices to remain confidential is granted.
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Carol St. Pierre, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Wageling, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, School
Administrative Units (SAU) 28 and 95, Windham School District, on her claims of
wrongful termination and violation of the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, RSA ch.
275-E. She contends that: (1) SAU 28 is liable for her constructive discharge
from SAU 95, even though she did not resign from SAU 28; (2) her claim against
SAU 28 was not time barred because the statute of limitations on a hostile work
environment claim begins to run on the date of the last hostile act, which here
occurred at SAU 95; (3) she filed her action within three years of the date on
which SAU 95 was created; (4) the trial court made findings of fact and weighed
the evidence; (5) whether she was constructively discharged and retaliated
against are questions of fact for a jury; (6) the acts she reported violated more
than school board policies and were not “fanciful or inconsequential”; (7) her
situation was comparable to that of the employee in Porter v. City of Manchester,
151 N.H. 30 (2004); and (8) she experienced adverse job consequences at SAU
95, including being assigned a job coach and being constructively discharged
when she resigned to take another position.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.Affirmed.
Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk