An email with the word ‘ladies' cost him the top job at Easthampton schools. Now, the same email has cost him his lawsuit.
But in a 17-page opinion, US District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni concentrated his analysis on the contents of the controversial email, which Perrone sent to Kwiecinski and the committee's executive assistant on March 29, 2023.
Advertisement
Kwiecinski had told Perrone in a telephone call that he had gotten the job and should be ready for formal approval by the full panel, according to court records.
In response, Perrone wrote an email that began with 'Ladies,' a word choice that sparked a broad debate on the definition of 'microaggression' and
In his ruling, Mastroianni noted that Perrone asked in the email for a 3 percent raise in the second and third years of the contract, as well as 30 vacation and 18 sick days annually.
Advertisement
'All other language and provisions are acceptable to me,' he concluded the email. 'Thank you!"
Mastroianni ruled that Perrone was still negotiating the terms of his contract.
'It is undisputed that [Perrone] did not sign an actual employment contract. [Perrone] nevertheless argues he had a valid contract (and a protected property interest),' Mastroianni wrote. 'There is no plausible support, whether direct or inferential, for [Perrone's] legal conclusion that an enforceable contract was created by the March 29 email.'
Perrone's contention that he had a valid contract conflicts with Massachusetts law that sets stringent conditions on the hiring of public school superintendents, the judge said.
'Massachusetts public policy requires an affirmative vote of the School Committee to accept any alterations to a previously offered employment agreement,' he wrote. 'As a matter of law, no enforceable contract is formed until such a vote occurs.'
He threw out Perrone's 14th Amendment claim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again. He also dismissed several other claims but left open the possibility for Perrone to bring a new lawsuit in the future.
Perrone's attorneys could not immediately be reached for comment. He is now the superintendent of the
Kwiecinski is no longer on the school board and Nicole LaChapelle, who as mayor was a voting member of the committee in 2023, left office on July 14 to become commissioner of the state's department of Conservation and Recreation.
John R. Ellement can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
17 hours ago
- Washington Post
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
WASHINGTON — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held.
Newsweek
19 hours ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
Advertisement Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. Advertisement A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
