A ‘ disturbing abuse of power’
Fired Simsbury town employee says officials tried to fake reasons for termination
SIMSBURY — Last month, the town of Simsbury fired Assistant Town Planner Robin Newton — but she and her supervisor say town leaders attempted to fabricate reasons for the termination, going so far as to press for changes in a performance review. Now, the union is fighting the firing, describing it as an abusive, retaliatory act.
What otherwise may have been an unremarkable workplace dispute escalated into a contentious public showdown marked by accusations of favoritism, dishonesty and back-door deal-making. The saga culminated on Nov. 1 when Town Manager Maria Capriola fired Newton.
The executive director of the CSEA SEIU Local 2001 David Glidden called Newton’s firing “an extremely disturbing abuse of power.”
The Courant reviewed documents from the town, the union and the state Department of Labor, including Newton’s hiring contract, Newton’s performance review, emails between town staff and letters written by Newton, her supervisor and the town’s board of selectmen. Together, the documents chronicle a contentious relationship between Newton and Capriola, defined most clearly by an August letter in which Newton accused Capriola of giving special treatment to another employee.
In that letter, Newton also alleged that Capriola conspired to have the assistant town planner’s performance reviews altered after Newton, in her capacity as treasurer of the local union, pushed back against Capriola’s hiring practices. Some of those allegations were later supported by Newton’s supervisor.
Capriola declined to comment.
An endless probation
Newton served as the town’s code compliance officer for nearly three years before she was promoted to assistant town planner in December 2018.
Newton’s promotion came with several conditions. Most notably, she had to complete her bachelor’s degree by the end of June 2020 and receive a satisfactory performance review before being taken off probation.
As Newton worked toward meeting those conditions, she remained active as the union’s treasurer. Town emails show that Newton pushed the town on the benefits that it offered to several recent hires — particularly a new code compliance officer who, Newton contended, was hired at a significantly inflated salary and was given additional vacation time. That employee’s relationship with the town manager would later become critical.
By July 2019, Newton had completed the two core conditions of her probation, documents show and Newton’s supervisor — Town Planner Michael Glidden, who is not related to the union head — sent an email recommending that Newton be taken off probation and instated as a full employee.
But nothing happened. Six weeks passed.
Then, in late August, Newton wrote an explosive letter filled with accusations against Capriola and Eric Gomes, the town’s human resources coordinator. Although Newton addressed the letter to Gomes, she brought a wider audience into the controversy by cc-ing the entire board of selectmen.
In the letter, Newton wrote that Capriola and the new code compliance officer had a close friendship and, because of that, Capriola was protecting the new employee and giving her preferential treatment, including a higher pay and added vacation time. Capriola and the code compliance officer knew each other from their time working in Mansfield, Newton wrote.
The code compliance officer “has on multiple occasions made it clear that she is protected by Mrs. Capriola and that she was provided ‘assurances’ when assuming the Code Compliance position,” Newton wrote.
Newton also wrote that Capriola was conspiring against her. Newton contended that Capriola refused to take her off probation — although she’d met the probationary requirements. Newton wrote that Capriola instead tried to persuade Glidden to modify the glowing performance review he had given
Newton. That allegation was later reiterated by Glidden.
Capriola’s actions were “a clear indication of unethical, retaliatory behavior,” Newton wrote, adding that she believed Gomes was complicit in Capriola’s scheming.
In her letter, Newton traces the perceived retaliation back to her union activity, specifically to her opposition to the additional benefits granted to the new code compliance officer.
About two weeks later, in early September, the union filed two complaints with the state Board of Labor Relations, backing up Newton’s stance.
That month, Capriola told The Courant that the town was still reviewing Newton’s “performance as a probationary employee to determine if she’s eligible to come off of probation.”
‘Intimidated and manipulated’
For a month, no formal action was taken, documents show. But behind the scenes, there was movement — including an investigation into the allegations of preferential treatment and retaliation that Newton had leveled in her August letter.
As that investigation rolled forward, Capriola on Oct. 23 notified Newton she was not coming off probation. In a fivepage letter, Capriola outlined five reasons, saying Newton:
displayed a “Lack of Teamwork/Inability to Follow Direction”
displayed a “Lack of Thoughtfulness Before Acting”
had “Poor Interactions With Community Members” displayed a “Lack of Candor” used “Work Time for Personal Activities”
Eight days later, with Newton’s probation denied but her employment not yet terminated, the board of selectmen issued its investigation report.
The report indicates that a town attorney interviewed numerous town employees and then concluded that none of Newton’s allegations held water.
“There is no support for Ms. Newton’s claims of a hostile work environment or unethical or retaliatory behavior by Ms. Capriola or Mr. Gomes,” the report said.
However, the report is not signed, so it is unclear who actually penned it. Capriola and her staff did not answer repeated inquiries about who wrote the report, saying only that it was from the board of selectmen.
But there was dissension inside town hall as to the accuracy of the report. On the same day it was issued, Newton’s supervisor, Glidden, wrote to the state labor board that the investigation report “misstates facts.” He said he worried that the “investigation was biased and predetermined.”
In his letter, Glidden recounts an investigation process so manipulative and aggressive that it left him “shocked.”
For instance, Glidden wrote that the town attorney made comments that Newton didn’t know how to stay in her lane.
“I was not comfortable speaking up due to fear of retaliation,” Glidden wrote. “I felt intimidated and manipulated by the inquiry.”
In his letter, Glidden also repeated an allegation that Newton made earlier — that Capriola and Gomes asked Glidden to alter his review of Newton.
“After I completed a job performance review of Robin Newton, I was approached by M. Capriola and E. Gomes with the direction to work with E. Gomes on potentially changing the performance review,” Glidden wrote.
Capriola and Gomes did not respond to requests for comment on this allegation.
The town planner chose to stand by his performance review, he wrote.
But Newton was fired one day later.
Fighting the firing
Newton said in an email to The Courant that her firing has caused emotional and financial hardship for her and her family.
Her teenage children, Newton wrote, have watched her put in extra hours from home or during vacations, and they knew that she enjoyed her work.
“It is confusing for them to see a parent who devoted a lot of time and effort into a community being treated unfairly and having statements being made that are untrue and unjust,” Newton wrote.
David Glidden — who is the executive director of CSEA SEIU Local 2001 and not related to Town Planner Michael Glidden — said in a statement to The Courant that Newton’s termination sends the message that town employees will be fired if they oppose town leaders.
“The record shows that Ms. Newton was an exemplary worker and a respected union leader,” David Glidden said. “But town management could not see beyond the fact that she had the audacity to question their dubious practices.”
As a first step, the union filed a grievance with the town of Simsbury, contesting Newton’s firing. That grievance was denied at a Nov. 25 hearing.
On Nov. 26, the union filed an arbitration case with the American Arbitration Association.
Newton said in an email that she’s “confident” her termination will be reversed.