Jill Lambert, 65, of Springfield, who worked at Woodstock Union between 2000 and 2018, also accuses the school of retaliating against her for taking three months of leave in 2016, after she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.
“It was quite startling when Jill came to us and she reported what the circumstances were for her dismissal. She was shocked,” said Lambert’s lawyer Norman Watts, a Woodstock-based attorney specializing in labor law.
Lambert received positive job evaluations, according to her complaint, and was praised for her “competence, composure and service-oriented approach to working with students, staff, families and community members.” She claims she was also promised by the school’s newly-hired associate principal she wouldn’t be let go when restructuring occurred.
School officials declined an interview and deferred comments to their attorney, who said the lawsuit’s claims were “wholly without merit.”
“We will vigorously defend the matter and expect to prevail,” said Pietro Lynn, of the Burlington-based firm Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Manitsky, which is representing the Windsor Central Supervisory Union.
In filings asking the court to dismiss the case, the district argues that Lambert was let go simply because her position was eliminated when the district’s middle and high schools consolidated to save money.
“This case arises out of the economic reality facing many Vermont schools and school districts—declining enrollments and increased costs,” its attorneys wrote.
And while the district acknowledges that Lambert’s duties were reassigned to younger administrative assistants, they argue there is a crucial difference between doing so and hiring a new, younger employee.
“She does not and cannot allege that she was replaced by a younger employee. This is fatal to her age discrimination claim,” the school argues.
As for Lambert’s retaliation claim, the district notes she wasn’t let go until 2018, two years after she went on leave, and argues that she can’t connect the two.
“At the end of the day, Plaintiff’s position was eliminated not because of Plaintiff’s age or her taking FMLA leave—it was eliminated as a cost-saving matter, as were a few other positions in the school,” the district writes in filings.
Superior Court judge Michael Kainen ruled against Woodstock Union’s motion to dismiss the case late last month. But he also wrote the school had “presented a legitimate business reason for the elimination of Plaintiff’s position.”
“If this were the Summary Judgement stage, Plaintiff would need to present sufficient evidence to carry her ultimate burden of showing that the school’s justification is a mere pretext for one or more asserted discriminatory motivations,” he wrote.
