The ex-town board coordinator who filed a million-dollar lawsuit against Riverhead Town, the town supervisor and three council members for wrongful termination of employment, breach of contract and other charges has had her claim thrown out by a state Supreme Court judge.
The court on March 3 granted the town’s motion to dismiss the suit filed in 2012 by former town board coordinator Donna Zlatniski, who claimed she was coerced to resign her position in June 2011 after four years on the job under the threat of criminal prosecution for conducting political business on town time.
Zlatniski claimed she was forced by Councilman James Wooten to make phone calls for his political fundraiser in order to keep her job.
A town ethics board inquiry in June 2011 found Zlatniski did make political solicitations for Wooten from Town Hall during work hours using town equipment. In its June 16, 2011 written opinion, the ethics board ruled that although Wooten did not know Zlatniski had made those calls from Town Hall, he did “knowingly authorize” her to do so. It admonished the councilman to “refrain from any such conduct in the future.”
Zlatniski had tendered her resignation from the town board coordinator post the day before the ethics hearing.
In the lawsuit Zlatniski claimed Supervisor Sean Walter and Councilman George Gabrielsen threatened her with criminal charges and possible jail time for making political phone calls from town hall. She claimed town officials promised
“not to object to any timely application for unemployment insurance.” The town did contest Zlatniski’s unemployment claim, which was subsequently denied by the unemployment insurance appeals board.
Zlatniski sued the town, Walter, Gabrielsen, Wooten and Councilwoman Jodi Giglio for wrongful termination, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distres.
The court dismissed all three causes of action and denied Zlatniski’s request to amend her complaint to add a claim for tortious interference with contract.
Zlatniski’s termination, even if “forced” as alleged, would not “rise to the level of wrongful conduct” with regard to an at-will employee, especially here, where they had ample grounds to fire plaintiff for cause,” the court ruled.
No cause of action for breach of contract existed with respect to the unemployment claim dispute, because there was no legal contract, the court said. State law requires all town contracts to be authorized by a town board resolution, the court said. Since there was no resolution authorizing the supervisor to sign a contract regarding the plaintiff’s unemployment insurance claim, there was no contract.
The court dismissed Zlatniski’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional d distress because town officials’ actions, it said, “cannot be considered extreme or outrageous” since “they had sufficient grounds, at the very least, to fire her for cause,” the court wrote.
The court further ruled the plaintiff did not establish grounds for amending the complaint to add a claim for tortious interference with contract, because Zlatniski’s tortious interference claim was “devoid of merit.”
The March 3 decision was issued by Supreme Court Justice W. Gerard Asher.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.
