Former Fairfield CFO Robert Mayer Sues Town Over Termination

FAIRFIELD, CT — Robert Mayer, Fairfield's former chief financial officer facing criminal charges in the fill pile case, has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the town.

The lawsuit, filed last month in Stamford Superior Court, claims Mayer was not notified before being fired, and it questions whether First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick's assertion that she had the "unfettered right to decide on the appointment of various Town officers" is legal.

Mayer, a New Canaan resident, was fired on Jan. 15, 2020, after serving as CFO for more than eight years.

"First Selectman Kupchick had no authority or discretion to remove Mr. Mayer from his position as Chief Financial Officer of the City in the absence of notice, a finding of good cause by the Board of Selectman, and an opportunity for Mr. Mayer to be heard in an evidentiary hearing before the Board of Selectman," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit cites Section 3.6(B) in the Town Charter, in part, to make its claim. The passage reads:

Unless this Charter provides that a particular department head or director may be removed without cause, the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote of all of its members shall have the power to remove for cause any department head, or any director appointed by a board or commission, provided notice and opportunity for a hearing before the Board of Selectmen be given as set forth in this Section 3.6 and such hearing is held in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Mayer is seeking to be reinstated as CFO — he was replaced by Caitlin Bosse on an interim basis, and then Jared Schmitt — and he is seeking monetary damages in excess of $15,000.

About two weeks after his termination, Mayer was arrested by Fairfield police and charged with burglary, larceny and evidence tampering, accused of stealing several files from the town, some of which police said were related to the fill pile case.

The Fairfield fill pile case involves accusations of illegal dumping of toxic materials at various sites throughout town. Seven people, most of whom are former town employees, have been arrested in connection with the case, including Mayer, who was arrested on new charges this past December.

"As stated in his civil complaint, Mr. Mayer was clearly illegally terminated in violation of the Fairfield Town Charter," attorney Lewis Chimes, who represents Mayer, said in an email to Patch. "In addition, as stated in his civil complaint, the January 24, 2020, arrest warrant submitted against Robert Mayer omitted clear and unambiguous evidence that completely exonerated Mr. Mayer: A written statement provided to Mr. Mayer from First Selectman Kupchik and Town Attorney James Baldwin on the date of his discharge stated that Mr. Mayer had until January 17, 2020 to return all Town property. It is undisputed that Mr. Mayer returned all Town Property, including the documents that are the subject of the arrest warrant on January 16. Mr. Mayer returned the documents one day before the deadline, in full compliance with the written instructions provided to him at his termination. No arrest warrant would have been issued if this information had been disclosed in the arrest warrant."

Fairfield Town Attorney James Baldwin, who is named in the lawsuit in addition to Kupchick, Schmitt and Fairfield Police Lt. John Bucherati, told Patch that he expects the town to win against the lawsuit.

Earlier in the Town Charter, in Section 1.4.B(1), it states that among the positions appointed by the First Selectman are the town's fiscal officer, controller and town treasurer.

"The town is confident that Mr. Mayer’s separation from employment was legal and appropriate in all respects and the legal process will bear this out in the end," Baldwin said.

Chimes told Patch that discussing possible damages in relation to the case was premature.

"Ordinarily, it is inadvisable to file a civil case while there are ongoing criminal proceedings," Chimes said. "In this case, Mr. Mayer’s criminal proceedings had dragged on for nearly three years without resolution, and it was necessary to file these claims in order to preserve them due to the pending statutes of limitations. It is premature to discuss damages or any other matters given the ongoing criminal proceedings."