Claudia Cass was hired in 2006 as a corrections officer for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. In December 2022, during a period of low staffing, she worked a shift that she believed fell below the prison’s “critical minimum” staffing level. Several days later, she emailed the prison warden expressing concern that staffing levels had consistently fallen below required minimums. In the email, Cass stated that policy required a lockdown under such circumstances, warned that releasing inmates under those conditions was unsafe, and wrote: “Going forward I will not be releasing them when we cannot meet the critical minimum staffing. It is not safe, it violates policy, and it is irresponsible.”
The Department initiated an investigation. During an interview, Cass told Department officers that if staffing levels remained as they were during the December shift, “she would not be opening the residents’ doors and would lockdown the unit.” The officers informed her that she lacked authority to unilaterally order a lockdown and that such decisions were reserved to higher-level leadership. When asked how she would respond to a direct order to release inmates for meals or medication, Cass stated that she would refuse to follow the order if she believed it was unsafe or violated policy. She was suspended with pay and later terminated.
Cass appealed to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board, arguing that her termination was unjust, unfair, and contrary to law, and specifically that it violated New Hampshire’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, RSA chapter 275-E, and the statute protecting public employees’ free speech rights, RSA chapter 98-E. The Board upheld the termination. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of those statutes and further found that Cass violated multiple department policies and administrative rules by failing to raise concerns through proper channels and by demonstrating an unwillingness to follow procedures in the future. Cass appealed.
On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected the Board’s jurisdictional analysis. At the time of the Board’s decision, RSA 21-I:58 required reinstatement if a termination was “taken in violation of a statute.” The Court emphasized that this language imposed a mandatory duty: if the Board finds a statutory violation, it “shall” reinstate the employee. Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, this necessarily required the Board to consider whether the termination violated RSA chapters 275-E or 98-E. Cass did not ask the Board to adjudicate a civil whistleblower claim; she asked it to determine whether statutory violations rendered her termination unlawful for reinstatement purposes. By refusing to consider that question, the Board “erred as a matter of law.”
The Court also found the Board’s factual findings inadequate. Although the Board concluded that Cass violated numerous department policies and administrative rules, its order did not explain which specific conduct supported each violation or how the cited policies were breached. Instead, the Board summarized Cass’ conduct and then listed multiple violated provisions without analysis. That approach left the Court “to speculate” as to the factual and legal reasoning underlying the Board’s conclusions, which is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
Because the Board both misapprehended its statutory authority and failed to adequately explain its findings, the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded to the Board for a new consideration.
Appeal of Cass (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board), 2025 N.H. 51, 2025 WL 3466392 (N.H. Dec. 3, 2025).