Councilor Perez, looking and wearing blue, stand by as her attorney, Jeff Morneau announces the suit. (James Paleologopoulos/Ryan Feyre, WAMC/The Reminder)

Little more than two weeks after the New North Citizens Council (NNCC) axed Maria Perez from her day job, the Springfield City Councilor for Ward 1 has struck back. Days after her termination, the NNCC released a cryptic press release that outlined the reasons for dismissal along with some gratuitous—and seemingly recanted—language. That language now forms the basis of Perez’s defamation suit that names her former employer, several NNCC staffers and board members, including Joesiah Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, a retiring School Committee member, is also challenging her in November’s election. She accuses him and the other defendants of defamation, wrongful termination and related claims. Perez is seeking seven-figure damages as compensation for what she alleges is a scheme Gonzalez and allies concocted to can her and muddy her reputation with accusations of embezzlement.

“The people mentioned today by my lawyer attacked me,” Perez said at the announcement Wednesday. She said the defendant attacked her faith, family and integrity.

“Most importantly, they attempted to attack my dignity and pride of our Latino community,” she continued. “My only fault has been advocating for the rights of my community.”

Perez’s complaint includes her termination letter. The letter states that an audit of her computer found it contained “an immense amount” of political files unrelated to her job as NNCC’s chief of housing. It cites NNCC policy that discourages actions that may give the impression the organization is acting without impartiality and prohibits political activity on employer time.

In addition to claiming defamation in the press release, Perez asserts there was a scheme dating to contract negotiations for the executive director earlier this year. She points to actions Gonzalez and other board members allegedly took to benefit Maria Ligus, the executive director. Perez’s complaint gestures at doubt about the political material on her work computer but does not seriously contest it. She does question the provenance of the audit of her device.

Perez opponent Joesiah Gonzalez. Lead defendant. Principal target? (submitted photo)

As a political document, the complaint could drive a stake into the heart of Gonzalez’s campaign to unseat Perez. The one-term School Committee member has faced a week of damning reports about his allies at NNCC and his alleged machinations to issue a statement with the loaded language about Perez’s defenestration.

Attention has zeroed in on the July 26 press release from NNCC that invoked “embezzlement.” That word does not appear in Perez’s termination letter. Gonzalez resigned from the NNCC board on July 31. The Republican later reported that the NNCC clerk, who had sent the July 26 release, confessed to the board at a July 31 meeting that Gonzalez had manipulated him into sending the release.

WMP&I has not independently confirmed these details.

As a legal filing, the complaint is no guarantee for Perez. Many claims may not survive early motions to dismiss. The defamation claims could fare better. Yet, even with the apparent misrepresentations in the July 26 release, she faces a substantial legal burden to succeed as a public figure.

In an email, Ligus told WMP&I she could not comment. Gonzalez did not reply to a request for comment.

Perez and her attorney, Jeff Morneau, announced the complaint Wednesday outside the Roderick Ireland Courthouse in Springfield. Morneau said the complaint had been shared with NNCC’s counsel beforehand.

In her complaint, Perez makes six claims. Two counts—assault and battery—essentially allege the NNCC’s human resources director manhandled her. Another two, civil conspiracy and interference with advantageous employment relations, may hinge on the fate of the case’s meatiest claims. Those are the claims of wrongful termination and defamation.

Absent a contract with separation terms, private employment in Massachusetts is at-will. In other words, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason. Exceptions like discrimination or terminations against public policy exist.

Perez’s complaint does not suggest she had an employment contract. If she had a discrimination claim, she must file with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination first. Typically, at least 90 days must elapse before a complainant can withdraw from MCAD and sue.

Not-so-funemployed. (still via YouTube/Focus Springfield)

That leaves Perez, 73, with a public policy argument, which she premises on election law. Specifically, she points to a law that bars employers from threatening, inducing or retaliating against employees for their votes or campaign contributions. The complaint adds that, broadly speaking, public policy prohibits termination of an employee for political affiliation and running (or not running) for office.

This claim will face challenges. The law Perez cites is a criminal statute. It does not establish a private cause of action. As a public policy argument, the claim may falter. Public policy exceptions to at-will employment only apply to asserting well-defined rights or refusing to break the law.

The rest of the argument imputes rules about government employment onto a private employer like NNCC. Even then, it is not at all clear the law protects running for office, let alone whether the defendants were retaliating against her decision to run as opposed to just embarrass her.

Should that claim fail, it is hard to see how the tortious interference claim could stand unless they could prove Ligus only fired Perez out of malice.

The defamation claim stands above the others, however. Because she asserts the claim as defamation per se—the alleged libel was an accusation of a crime, namely embezzlement—she does not need to establish damage to press her claim. As a public figure, Perez must show actual malice. That is, she must show the defendants intentionally lied or published the release with reckless disregard to the truth.

Normally, proving actual malice is an incredibly steep climb. The false invocation of embezzlement in the July 26 press release helps, but only so much. The bald assertion that Gonzalez and others acted with actual malice may not be enough to sustain the claim.

The complaint states the July 26 release accused Perez of embezzling federal funds. It did not, though. The release only implied, if strongly, that she did. That does not let the defendants off the hook. It just complicates her path through motions to dismiss, summary judgment and ultimately trial. Perhaps there will be a smoking gun proving intent to smear her, but more likely than not she must convince a jury Gonzalez and others acted with reckless disregard. This gets into a precise question of what they knew and believed embezzlement to mean.

Executive Director Ligus remains in place. Has she established enough distance from the release? (via newnorthcc.org)

Another question is damages. Although a request for a retraction is not required to pursue defamation claims in Massachusetts, it can help establish malice. Perez does not state whether she sought one or not, although Morneau has characterized the defendants as unrepentant. The NNCC did issue a correction, of sorts. On August 1, the Board clarified, via Ligus, that Perez was not turfed over misusing federal funds. The NNCC could still retract the statement further, mitigating the damages Perez can receive.

Morneau did not respond to a request for comment about the retraction, actual malice or the use of the election statute to sidestep at-will employment.

Compared to the laborious explication of Ligus’ contract negotiations, the complaint spends relatively little time discussing how Gonzalez, Ligus and others at NNCC conspired on the press release. Only two paragraphs discuss the claim that Gonzalez manipulated the NNCC board’s now-former clerk, Efrain Vazquez, into disseminating the press release.

The complaint levels the defamation claim against all defendants. This includes Ligus despite the August 1 press release denying executive knowledge and approval of the July 26 release. The Republican story on the July 31 board meeting states Gonzalez, Vazquez and then-board chair Juana Girona knew about the earlier release. That story did not describe any role Ligus played in the July 26 release.

The complaint’s recitation of Ligus’ contract negotiations clearly exists to support the conspiracy, tortious interference and wrongful termination claims. Indeed, rumors about those discussions earlier this year began leaking shortly after the July 26 press release went out. Still, the details are somewhat tendentious and only serve the ancillary claims. The meat of the complaint remains defamation, which would stand no matter how impure Ligus’ motive to terminate Perez was.

Speaking to the press yesterday, Morneau suggested the defendants sought to disentangle themselves from the separate acts Perez alleges was one big conspiracy.

“Mr. Gonzalez, at least in the media, seems like he has distanced himself from the termination and Ms. Ligus has distanced herself from the press release,” Morneau told the press yeaterday. “We believe that they were in cahoots on the thing from the beginning on both the termination and the press release.”

Who did what will matter as the case proceeds. Depending on its insurance, the NNCC will likely carry much of the financial burden from this case. Yet, its liability may vary depending on who was acting in what capacity. The knowledge and actions of individual actors could alter the liability NNCC itself has.

The niceties and minutiae may not matter for some time. Defendants can seek extensions to respond, easily pushing things well past the election.

In addition to the heat Gonzalez has taken for whatever role he played in this affair, the suit could freeze up the race itself. Prior to Perez’s complaint but after the July 26 release, Gonzalez had been posting regularly on Facebook. In addition to ignoring requests for comment, Gonzalez has not posted since Monday.