Tiverton teacher and union representative Amy Mullen.

To be clear, when Amy prevails in this case she will be able to get full back pay, attorneys’ fees, etc.”

Robert Walsh, NEARI

Suing School Committee members individually is “a very unusual and aggressive legal maneuver. In my experience, the purpose of an action like this is more of an attempt at intimidation than the pursuit of any kind of justice.”

Stephen M. Robinson, attorney for Tiverton

TIVERTON — A judge last week rejected a teachers union bid for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the firing of 25-year Tiverton teacher and union representative Amy Mullen.

“The judge agreed with Tiverton and denied the request to reinstate Mullen,” Tiverton schools attorney Stephen M. Robinson told Superintendent of Schools Peter Sanchioni in a letter.

“As a gesture of good faith,” he added, the schools “complied with a request from the judge to remove our direction to Mullen that she not communicate with teachers and other employees of the school district."

Robert Walsh, executive director of NEARI (the state teachers union), discounted the significance of the decision and repeated that the firing will prove a costly mistake for Tiverton.

“ It is fairly obvious … that the school committee’s attorney has not fully explained to the committee what happened on the first day in court. The only reason the temporary restraining order was denied at the first hearing is that the attorney for the school committee represented to the Judge that Amy’s termination would be converted to a suspension and the gag order against her restricting her from union activities would be rescinded,” Mr. Walsh said in a letter to the Sakonnet Times.

“To be clear,” he added, “when Amy prevails in this case she will be able to get full back pay, attorneys fees, etc.  … the harm will be solved when Amy, and her lawyers, are fully reimbursed.”

Mr. Sanchioni, and the Tiverton School Committee which voted 4-0-1 to back the firing, said the action was due to Ms. Mullen’s “disruptive behavior” during efforts to launch remote learning at the schools back in March.

“It is important to note that the action taken by the Committee is a result of on-going disruptive, unprofessional behavior by the employee, for which ample and abundant documentation and warnings were provided,” Mr. Robinson repeated this week.  “Contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, the termination was not due to the employee speaking out or engaging in union activities and the committee is not violating anyone’s 1st Amendment rights as alleged in the lawsuit. …  Rather than collaborate as a role model and problem solver during a time of pandemic she has chosen to continue her pattern of being divisive and obstructive.  Her termination had nothing to do with her role as union president.”

“Amy offered no hardline union negotiations. No hold up of distance learning. She asked a question. And she was terminated for it,” Mr. Walsh replied.  “Sanchioni and the Tiverton School Committee chose to silence Amy and prohibit her from speaking to her members, parents and students. In so doing, they violated her First Amendment rights and opened themselves up to personal liability in addition to their official capacity.”

That nature of that question was not specified — asked about it this week, Mr. Walsh did not reply.

He did say, however, “Based on the evidence that was presented to the Judge, he did not see any reason for Amy’s termination other than her speech as a union official. This comports with what we have been saying all along - that Amy was retaliated against for engaging in protected speech as a union leader.”

The School Committee, Mr. Walsh added, should not only reinstate Ms. Mullen, “but they should also conduct an investigation into all the activities of this recently hired superintendent to determine what other behavior he may be engaged in when purportedly acting on their behalf.”

The NEARI’s legal action against Tiverton schools also names School Committee members individually, a tactic that Mr. Robinson called “a very unusual and aggressive legal maneuver. In my experience, the purpose of an action like this is more of an attempt at intimidation than the pursuit of any kind of justice.”

Please support your local news coverage

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the local economy - and many of the advertisers who support our work - to a near standstill. During this unprecedented challenge, we continue to make our coronavirus coverage free to everyone at eastbayri.com - we believe it is our mission is to deliver vital information to our communities. If you believe local news is essential, especially during this crisis, please consider a tax-deductible donation. 

Donate Here

Thank you for your support!

Matt Hayes, Sakonnet Times Publisher