Town Reaches Settlement with Former Employee who Filed CHRO Complaint Alleging Age and Gender Discrimination by Selectman

Wilton’s Board of Selectmen (BOS) has approved a settlement agreement to resolve a complaint brought by former Wilton Social Services Department Director Sarah Heath. But there are some unanswered questions of whether the BOS followed the proper process to approve the deal.

In the complaint — which was filed with the state’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) in June 2023 when she still worked for the Town —Heath alleged that Selectman Ross Tartell discriminated against her and harassed her based on her age and the fact that she is female. The complaint was filed against the Town of Wilton as both a CHRO case and an Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case. It was not filed against Tartell directly, but rather against the Town as the employer.

The decision to approve a settlement was on the agenda at the July 16 BOS meeting. Tartell recused himself from that portion of the meeting and was not present for the board’s discussion.

Prior to the board’s vote, Selectwoman Kim Healy indicated she had something to say on the matter.

“I would like to just make a statement,” Healy began. “It has to be said, as a female at the table.”

She proceeded to read a statement which she had written in advance.

“I know how hard it is to make a sexual harassment claim against your employer. And as a woman, I could not let this moment pass without at least acknowledging it. Frankly, if it was me, I would have stepped down from the Board [of Selectmen].”

Editor’s note: the CHRO complaint did not allege “sexual harassment.” Heath filed an Affidavit of Illegal Discriminatory Practice, in which she checkmarked “discriminated against” on the basis of her age and sex, and “harassed” — which is distinct from “sexually harassed,” an option that she did not checkmark.

Selectman Bas Nabulsi offered a different perspective, saying public speculation that may arise is “unfortunate” and “unfair.”

“I hadn’t appreciated, when I looked at the agenda, that this was going to be the full extent of what was put on the public record,” Nabulsi said. “I think that it leaves a taste in my mouth that people can draw conclusions about the nature of the dispute that gave rise to this settlement.”

“That’s very unfortunate, in my view, that people are left to speculate about the nature of the claim,” Nabulsi continued. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to get into the specifics, but I do think that that’s hugely unfair to the individual.” (GMW emailed Nabulsi to ask him to clarify whether “the individual” was Heath or Tartell. He responded that he meant Tartell.)

First Selectman Toni Boucher thanked both Healy and Nabulsi for their comments, but no other comments were made. With Tartell recused from the discussion, the remaining selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the settlement.

Questions about The Process

The very brief discussion about the settlement — it last just over two minutes — at the July 16 meeting could leave observers with questions. Some of GMW‘s questions remain unanswered — including whether proper procedure was followed.

1. What informed the selectmen’s vote in favor of approving the agreement?

Typically, details of active litigation are considered privileged and only discussed in closed executive sessions. However, there are laws governing how the public must be notified if and when any discussion — closed or open — is happening. Discussion that happens (either in person or by email and other electronic means) without the public present or notified appropriately could potentially be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

The July 16, 2024 meeting was the first time the complaint was specifically mentioned on an agenda.

GMW could not find notice of any executive sessions in the last several months in which the selectmen would have discussed the matter or been briefed on the negotiations to settle. According to BOS meeting agendas, the last executive session on a “legal matter” was Monday, Feb. 5, and the agenda for that date doesn’t specify what legal matter was discussed. The only other legal case discussed in executive session this calendar year was a blight foreclosure case discussed in January and March — properly noticed referring to the specific case.

Other than those dates, no other agenda lists any reference to ongoing litigation or the CHRO complaint, going back to when the complaint was originally filed one year ago.

During the July 16, 2024 meeting, there was no discussion of the specific terms of the agreement.

Healy, Nabulsi and Selectman Josh Cole did not review the document during the meeting. The only document visible during the discussion was the meeting agenda in front of them.

So when and how did the BOS members learn of the CHRO settlement details?

GMW has also submitted a FOIA request for any emails exchanged by the BOS on the subject.

2. What were the terms of the settlement?

GMW requested a copy of the settlement agreement from Boucher, who confirmed the document was no longer confidential once it was signed by her, and she would share it if a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request were submitted.

GMW sent a formal FOIA request to the Town on July 17 and received the document on July 18. Under the agreement, the Town will pay Heath $6,000, with no admission of wrong-doing. Heath agrees to withdraw the complaint.

3. Did the selectmen review the agreement before signing off on it?

Given several factors — the lack of discussion or document review during the July 16 meeting; the absence of notice of any executive sessions; the comments made by Healy (which inaccurately characterized the specific allegations in the complaint) and by Nabulsi (which suggested he was uncomfortable with the process) — GMW emailed each member of the board to confirm that they had “the opportunity to review the settlement agreement or discuss its substantive terms prior to” the July 16 vote to approve it.

Boucher, Nabulsi, Healy and Cole all responded to GMW‘s email but declined to answer the question — even though the agreement is not confidential, is fully executed, and Heath is required to drop any further complaint.

4. Why The Silence?

Boucher copied Town counsel Ira Bloom on her July 18 response to GMW‘s inquiry, in which she declined to answer citing “client-attorney privilege”. GMW repeated our question to Boucher and Bloom, emphasizing that it pertained only to the BOS process, and not to any negotiations or terms of the settlement — quite simply, “was the agreement circulated to the selectmen before the meeting?”

Neither Boucher nor Bloom has responded as of press time.

Prior to citing client-attorney privilege, Boucher initially told GMW the selectmen were “at liberty to express their views” on the matter. When GMW asked Boucher if she had any further reflections after the meeting, she sent GMW the following statement:

“I [do] not have experience with this legal case as it happened before my time,” she responded via email. “The BOS members that were in office at the time are at liberty to express their views. As for [Healy], it did seem that she was deeply affected and needed to express it. But I cannot comment on what occurred as I was not present or aware of the situation.”

GMW will update this story if we receive any additional information or clarification from Town officials.

Reaction to the Agreement

GMW reached out to Tartell for comment on the board’s vote to settle the matter, as well as his reaction to the statements made by Healy and Nabulsi. Tartell only confirmed he was not present for that portion of the meeting and did not offer any other comment.

Heath sent GMW a brief statement after the settlement was reached:

“I made the complaint because Ross Tartell, who [was] not my supervisor, spoke to me in a demeaning, inappropriate way, twice, at a completely inappropriate time. My hope is that he never does that again, to me or anyone else. I appreciate the support that I’ve received from so many over the past year. Thank you.”

Heath reported directly to then-First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice, who declined to publicly comment on the settlement.

[UPDATE, July 25]: On the morning after the July 16 BOS meeting, GMW reached out to Tartell for comment about the settlement and ensuing BOS discussion and vote. His initial response on July 17 confirmed that he recused himself from the meeting during the topic. On Wednesday, July 24, following publication of this article, Tartell sent the following statement:

“In June of 2023, Wilton’s Director of Social Services, Sarah Heath, filed a discrimination complaint (“Complaint”) against the Town of Wilton with the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. That Complaint directly involved me as a Selectman. The Town denied and defended against all of the allegations set forth in the Complaint.

“I have always had full confidence that the legal process would reach a fair conclusion. An agreement was reached between the parties resolving the Complaint, in order to avoid the uncertainty, expense and burden of any further litigation. The agreement contains no admission of liability by any party. The Complaint has been withdrawn and the Town has been released from any and all claims.

“I am pleased that this matter has been resolved in the best interests of all parties.”