Court upholds layoff of North Smithfield town worker

NORTH SMITHFIELD – The state Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that former North Smithfield Town Administrator Paulette D. Hamilton and former Finance Director Cheryl Ficarro did not cause a breach of contract or violate the constitutional rights of former Assistant Zoning Inspector Terry Andoscia.

Andoscia sued the town after his employment was terminated during his fourth consecutive two-year term appointment as assistant zoning inspector in 2009. Andoscia filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging that his appointment constituted a contract of employment and, therefore, his termination without cause constituted a breach of contract and a violation of his constitutional rights.

In 2014, a Superior Court trial justice entered a final judgment in favor of the town, which prompted Andoscia to appeal to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in finding that no contract of employment existed under the facts as presented.

According to the facts of the case, Andoscia was appointed to serve a two-year term as an assistant zoning inspector for the town in 2002. After successfully carrying out his duties, he was subsequently appointed to two consecutive two-year terms by Hamilton in 2004 and 2006.

Shortly after the end of the latter term, Andoscia received a letter from the town clerk in December of 2008 informing him that he was being appointed to another two-year term expiring on Dec. 1, 2010.

Less than two months later, however, on Feb. 6, 2009, the town advised Andoscia not to report to work and stopped paying him. According to the town, Andoscia’s employment was terminated for budgetary reasons and not for cause.

Andoscia subsequently filed a complaint in Superior Court, alleging breach of employment contract and a violation of his constitutional rights. The case was heard by a trial justice in a jury-waived trial on June 16, 2014.

During the trial, Robert E. Benoit, former building and zoning official for the town and Andoscia’s supervisor, testified that in February 2009, there was a reduction in aid to the town from the state.

For that reason, he testified, several employees were temporarily laid off and that the remaining employees in town agreed to take a 20 percent cut in pay for a few months until the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.

Benoit further testified that Andoscia was temporarily laid off and told that, because of the budget cut, he would not be compensated for any further work. As a result, Andoscia received no compensation after Feb. 6, 2009.

Benoit also testified that in July 2009, after the beginning of a new fiscal year, he informed Andoscia that he could come back to work any time he wanted to.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial justice entered final judgment in favor of the town.

According to court documents, the trial justice found that Andoscia did not negotiate the terms of any agreement with the town nor did he bargain over the terms of his employment. The justice also indicated that Benoit offered no testimony to suggest that Andoscia’s appointment was anything other than an appointment pursuant to the town ordinance.

In addition, the trial justice concluded that there was no evidence of mutuality of obligation because there was no evidence that Andoscia agreed to be reciprocally bound by the employment.

Andoscia appealed the decision contending that the trial justice erred when she concluded that there was no contract between the parties.

In its decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, saying Andoscia failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his contention that a valid contract existed.

“Under the clear terms of the ordinance, a part-time zoning officer serves at the pleasure of the town administrator, and there is no evidence of a bargained-for exchange or that the plaintiff provided any consideration in exchange for a guaranteed two-year term of employment,’ the court said.