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
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana case on whether racial redistricting is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has teed up a major case for next term on whether racial redistricting is unconstitutional. In a Friday night scheduling order, the high court asked parties to file briefs on whether Louisiana's creation of a second majority-minority House seat violates the 14th or 15th Amendments. The question could significantly curtail efforts to force states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The order is part of a case from the 2024 term regarding Louisiana's congressional map that justices decided to hold over for re-argument. The justices set a deadline of Aug. 27 for briefs to be filed by appellants on the question. Reply briefs are due Oct. 3, the Friday before the beginning of the 2025 session. In June, the Supreme Court ordered further arguments over Louisiana's congressional map that was approved by the state's GOP-led legislature and created a second majority-Black district. An order from the court issued on the last day of the 2024 term restored the case to its calendar for reargument. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the move to order more arguments and said the court should have decided the case. The move meant the state's map with two majority-Black districts would remain intact for now. The district lines at the center of the dispute were invalidated in 2022 by a three-judge lower court panel, which sided with a group of self-described "non-African-American voters" who had challenged the House map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The map wasn't the first crafted by the state's Republican-led legislature in the wake of the 2020 Census. Instead, Louisiana's efforts to redraw district lines, as all states do after the census, have resulted in a yearslong legal battle that has been before the Supreme Court twice before. The case demonstrated the challenges state lawmakers face when trying to balance trying to comply with the Voting Rights Act without relying too much on race in the drawing the political lines, which can run afoul of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's decision is also likely to have implications for the balance of power in the House in the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans will try to hold onto their tiny Crawford contributed to this report.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
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. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Fox News
3 days ago
- Fox News
Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines enforcement details
A federal appeals court will hear oral arguments Friday afternoon in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., one of several lower court cases that took shape after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order. The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide. Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order. Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide. Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional. They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction. "The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief." It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question. Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth. "With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said. "Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect." The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect. This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
