MANCHESTER – The lawyer for former Nashua Deputy Police Chief Scott Howe has filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court following a superior court judge’s recent dismissal of Howe’s wrongful termination suit against his former boss and the city of Nashua.

Manchester attorney Joseph Kelly Levasseur cites five areas in which he believes Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler erred by dismissing all of Howe’s claims, which include assertions that now-retired Chief John Seusing lied to him, failed to follow departmental disciplinary procedures, deprived Howe of his right to due process, threatened to fire him publicly and eventually coerced him to retire, according to recent motions and the appeal documents.

Howe filed the suit in October 2014 in Hillsborough County Superior Court in Manchester, roughly a year after he retired, a move he said he made after Seusing allegedly lied to him by telling him that he had the three votes of the Nashua Police Commission to publicly fire him if he didn’t agree to retire.

But, according to Levasseur, Howe later found out that Seusing didn’t have the votes he said he did.

That alleged episode is one of several that Levasseur cited in his objection to the defense’s motion for summary judgment and his subsequent motion to reconsider the dismissal order. He reiterates the claims in his appeal, posing them to the Supreme Court as interrogatories in which he asks whether Smukler, the superior court judge, erred by finding "no genuine issue of material fact" to support Howe’s claims or by finding that Howe did not "meet the public policy prong" of his suit.

Levasseur also asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Smukler was wrong to dismiss Howe’s wrongful termination and "Constitutional" claims without fully acknowledging that Howe "was never provided … his due process rights."

Another question Levasseur posed to the high court asks why Smukler found "in a light most favorable (to Howe) that he was coerced into retirement" but then found that Howe had available "an adequate statutory remedy to enforce his Constitutional rights," a reference to the defense claim that Howe could have sought a hearing before the Police Commission.

Smukler, in finding for Seusing and the city, opined that Seusing had a right to terminate Howe because he engaged in "indiscretion and lies … including the failure to report income," acts that Smukler said "are not encouraged by public policy."

The statements stem from the part-time job Howe once held cleaning and maintaining the Nashua Police Relief Association’s building on Kinsley Street while he was serving as deputy chief.

He was accused of accepting payment in the form of gift cards, allegedly in order to hide his full income from his ex-wife, according to earlier reports.

Levasseur didn’t dispute the allegations, but said Howe promptly filed an amended income tax return to remedy the matter. He also said the issue was small and relatively insignificant given the overall scope of the lawsuit.

Levasseur said Wednesday that depending on its outcome, Howe’s suit and the appeal may have a sweeping effect on all public-sector employees.

"This will be a very important case … the ruling that comes out of the Supreme Court will affect every state and municipal employee and department head," he said.

Dean Shalhoup can be reached at 594-6443, dshalhoup@nashuatelegraph.com or @Telegraph_DeanS.