In a case filed February 20, 2025, The Superior Court of Delaware denied one part of a lawsuit filed against the City of Milford by James Puddicombe but granted another part. Puddicombe served as the city engineer until February 2025.
According to court documents, Puddicombe’s departure from the city was not amicable and he filed a complaint asserting claims of wrongful discharge; tortious interference with a. contract; civil conspiracy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; trespass to personal property and Family Leave and Medical Act (FMLA) retaliation.
“Mr. Puddicombe asserts his termination stemmed from his refusal to perform work he determined had not been approved properly,” the court documents read.
In addition to the city itself, Puddicombe filed suit against Mayor F. Todd Culotta, then-city manager, Mark Whitfield; public works director Willis Shafer and human resources director Jamesha Williams individually. His assertion is that they worked in tandem to retaliate against Puddicombe for his failure to proceed with work he felt had not only not been approved properly but was unethical.
The city and individuals filed a motion for extension of time citing defense counsel’s recent entry onto the litigation. Puddicombe objected to the extension, but the court granted it over those objections.
On April 4, 2025, the city filed a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Rule 12(b)(c) which states “all claims must fail because Plaintiff was an at-will employee. Oral arguments were held on May 23, 2025, and, at that time, the court orally denied a motion for default judgement.
The court then reviewed all the allegations submitted by Puddicombe in order to rule on the motion to dismiss. Under Puddicombe’s first claim, that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of due process, alleges that the city terminated his employment for engaging in activities that should have been protected. The city, however, contend that as an at-will employee, Puddicombe could not claim wrongful discharge and that he waived any hearing he may have been entitled to regarding his termination via email.
Delaware courts permit wrongful discharge claims to proceed, even when an employee is at-will, if the discharge violated public policy. State law indicates that an at-will employment agreement may be discharged without demonstrating to anyone else’s satisfaction that the reasons for doing so ar valid, reasonable or appropriate. The city contends that an at-will employee can be terminated for any reason, at any time with oru without cause.
According to court documents, Delaware courts hold that if a discharged employee can assert a public interest recognized by some legislative, administrative or judicial authority and occupies a position with responsibility for that interest, can be an exception to the at-will employee rule.
Puddicombe insists that he was terminated when he refused to perform work, he felt violated ethics and possibly statues in addition to financial rules within the city charter. The court documents state that if the court accepts that allegation as true, his discharge will fall within the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. However, as to this charge, only the City of Milford can be held liable as Culotta, Whitfield, Williams and Shafer were not his employer. The courts dismissed that charge only against the individuals but held that it was able to move forward against the city.
As for the request for summary judgement against Puddicombe regarding the due process argument, the courts declined to grant summary judgement.
While employed by the city, Puddicombe was under contract with them and with the American Public Works Association (APWA). Puddicombe argued that the city made false allegations and misrepresented facts to undermine his employment contract. In addition, as part of his additional contract with the APWA, Puddicombe claims the city rescinded approved travel, something he was required to complete under his contract with the other organization.
The court stated that the city cannot be liable for both a breach of Puddicombe’s employment contract and tortious interference with that same contract, so they dismissed the claim for tortious interference. However, Culotta, Whitfield, Shafer and Williams were not Puddicombe’s employers. Puddicombe contends they acted outside their role when they implicitly threatened him to compel compliance. Therefore, the claim for tortious interference and breach of contract with the cancelled APWA travel was not dismissed against Whitfield, Culotta, Williams and Shafer.
One of the most concerning claims made by Puddicombe is a claim for civil conspiracy. He alleges that the defendants participated in a concerted effort to disparage im and cause his termination. Court records show that Puddicombe alleges the city and the individual defendants “spent time and effort orchestrating his dismissal.” The court stated that Puddicombe established a conceivable claim for civil conspiracy against all the defendants.
The final three claims alleged by Puddicombe was that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress, committed trespass to personal property and engaged in FMLA retaliation. The defendants did agree that the trespass to personal property and the FMLA retaliation claims should move forward. They argued that government entities and their employees had immunity against tort claims which is what emotional distress claims fall under.
“Viewing the allegations contained within the complaint in a light most favorable to Mr. Puddicombe, it can be inferred that the individual defendants may have performed acts with willful and malicious intent,” the court documents read. “At this stage, the determination remains within the province of the fact finder and survives the motion to dismiss.”
The court documents conclude that Puddicombe has demonstrated a conceivable path to recovery on five out of seven claims against the city. According to the Superior Court docket for Kent County, a civil motion hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2026, at 2 PM before Judge Andrea M. Freud.
