Danbury, Connecticut – In a recent legal twist, the city of Danbury has proposed a $125,000 settlement to its former finance director, David St. Hilaire, in an effort to resolve a lawsuit where he alleges unjust termination and failure to uphold a retirement agreement negotiated in 2022. This settlement offer was put forward last week in a Connecticut Superior Court by Danbury’s city attorney, Michael Rose.
The dispute originated after the city accused St. Hilaire of improperly accepting a $350,000 payout for unused vacation time, an allegation he firmly denies. The disagreements escalated following claims that St. Hilaire did not fulfill necessary in-office work hours during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to his negotiated resignation on October 31, 2022. The agreement promised St. Hilaire three months of salary, continued health insurance, $80,000 in lieu of vacation time, among other benefits.
Despite agreeing to these terms, St. Hilaire contends that Danbury did not fulfill its end of the bargain, leading to his decision to file a lawsuit in 2024. He claims that the city backed out of the agreement under the pretext of needing to examine a tax lien, an investigation he asserts was never completed. Furthermore, he accuses the city of neither adhering to nor reconfirming their obligations as outlined in the retirement agreement.
The city’s legal strategy evolved in November when it requested the court to dismiss portions of the lawsuit, arguing that St. Hilaire was not dismissed but had resigned voluntarily following the retirement agreement negotiations. In response, St. Hilaire’s lawyer, Elisabeth Maurer, emphasized in court documents that his resignation was stipulated by the retirement agreement, which the city subsequently renounced.
Maurer pointed out that it would be unjust for the city to benefit from the settlement agreement—for instance, by St. Hilaire ceasing employment—while denying him the agreed-upon retirement benefits. This underscores the crux of the legal battle, where both parties dispute the terms and interpretations of the negotiated agreement.
As of last Thursday, St. Hilaire has not publicly commented on the city’s settlement offer, and his attorney has maintained discretion, withholding any public statements about ongoing negotiations or potential resolution strategies.
Given the complexities and evolving nature of this case, further legal proceedings are anticipated as both parties seek to assert their positions within the framework of the law.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically written by Open AI and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any concerns or corrections regarding the article can be addressed by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.