By Paul Feely
The New Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester
CONCORD, N.H. — The state’s highest court has ruled in favor of a veteran corrections officer who appealed her firing after pointing out a lack of staffing inside the men’s prison in Concord, and ordered the matter sent back to the state Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) for additional review.
Claudia Cass, who worked as a prison guard for 17 years, appealed her firing and the related Personnel Appeals Board ruling that backed the Department of Corrections (DOC) decision to terminate her employment, claiming she was fired for not following a hypothetical order after expressing concerns over staffing levels inside the prison.
READ NEXT: How mandatory overtime breaks down officers and families
According to court documents, Cass was hired by DOC as a corrections officer in 2006.
From Dec. 16 to Dec. 17, 2022 , Cass was working a shift at the prison and believed staffing levels were at a “critical minimum.” Cass emailed prison Warden Michelle Edmark on Dec. 20, reporting that she believed the staffing levels at the prison had consistently been below the minimum required by policy.
Cass told the warden that “policy dictates when we are below minimum, we are in lockdown.”
“Residents adjust better to change when they know it is coming,” Cass wrote. “I recommend they are informed that there will be a change in the chow and medication schedule before the weekend. 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.”
Court documents show Edmark began an investigation into Cass’s actions, including her plan to follow certain procedures if a low staffing situation arose. As part of the investigation, Cass met with two DOC officers to discuss the contents of her email, telling them during the meeting that, if the staffing levels were the same on the upcoming weekend as they were during the December shift, “she would not be opening the residents’ doors and would lockdown the unit.”
The officers told Cass that, as a corrections officer, she was not authorized to make unilateral decisions to lock down units and that higher levels of leadership needed to make those decisions. The officers then asked Cass what she planned to do if given a direct order to send residents to get medication or food, and she said that she would not follow such an order if she believed it to be unsafe or a violation of policy.
Cass was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, and was later fired. She appealed the decision to the appeals board, arguing (among other things) that her termination was unlawful and unreasonable, and in violation of RSA chapter 275-E (2023), New Hampshire’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, and RSA chapter 98-E (2023), which protects public employees’ rights to freedom of speech and expression.
The appeals board upheld the decision to fire Cass, saying it lacked jurisdiction to consider issues raised under RSA chapter 275-E and RSA chapter 98-E, and that the petitioner failed to prove that her termination was “unjust, unfair, or contrary to law.”
Cass appealed the decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
“It should not be the policy of the State of New Hampshire that corrections officers must blindly follow orders regardless the legality, morality, or lack of safety it entails. Corrections officers have the right and responsibility to question orders and should not be terminated for expressing opinions on staffing,” John Krupski , Cass’s attorney, wrote in a brief.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, the state Supreme Court said the DOC objected to Cass’s appeal by claiming the appeals board “lacks jurisdiction to formally adjudicate claims under RSA 275-E and RSA 98-E,” arguing she would have to file a civil suit to make such determinations.
“The PAB adopted this reasoning in its order denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,” the Supreme Court’s ruling stated. “The flaw with the DOC’s and the PAB’s reasoning is that the petitioner never filed a civil suit with the PAB or asked the PAB to ‘formally adjudicate claims’ under those statutes; instead, she asked the PAB to consider whether her termination violated those statutes because any such violation would require the PAB to reinstate her employment. Neither of the PAB’s orders addressed the petitioner’s arguments on that point.
“Because the PAB incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the petitioner’s termination violated RSA chapter 275-E or RSA chapter 98-E, it erred as a matter of law. Accordingly, we vacate its order and remand for the PAB to consider whether the petitioner’s termination was in violation of either or both of those statutes.”
The court also said the appeals board ruled that Cass violated numerous DOC policies and procedures and administrative rules, but provided only a narrative summary of her conduct “without any analysis.”
“Accordingly, we conclude that the PAB has failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning, and we vacate its findings and remand for the PAB to reconsider and clarify its order,” the court’s ruling stated.
—
© 2025 The New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.). Visit www.unionleader.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
