Background
Fauna J. Eller, a former town tax assessor for Newington, sent an email on August 25, 2023, to town officials accusing several of them—including Benjamin Ancona Jr., the former town attorney—of misconduct. Eller alleged that Ancona was unethical, abrasive, and bullying; had failed to recuse himself from conflicts of interest; and was advancing the interests of certain political donors over the town’s interests. She later filed both an ethics complaint with the town’s Board of Ethics and a grievance complaint with the Statewide Grievance Committee restating these allegations. Both complaints were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence or probable cause.
In May 2024, Ancona and seven other town officials sued Eller for defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the town’s ethics code. They filed a 28-count amended complaint in July 2024. Eller filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute (General Statutes § 52-196a), arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from her exercise of her constitutional right to petition the government regarding matters of public concern.
The trial court granted Eller’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed, making two primary arguments: (1) that Eller, as a town official at the time she made the statements, was not entitled to anti-SLAPP protections, and (2) that her statements were not communicated in a public forum and thus did not meet the statutory threshold.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the first issue regarding Eller’s status as a town official, the court held that the plaintiffs’ argument was not properly preserved for appellate review. The plaintiffs failed to raise this claim in their opposition to the motion to dismiss at the trial court; instead, they raised it for the first time in a post-appeal motion for reconsideration filed after the appeal was already pending. Connecticut appellate procedure does not permit parties to raise new issues for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. Because the plaintiffs did not amend their appeal to challenge the denial of the reconsideration motion, the court declined to review this claim.
On the public forum issue, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument outright. The court noted that Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute distinguishes between two types of protected activity: the “right of free speech,” which requires communication in a public forum on a matter of public concern, and the “right to petition the government,” which requires communication to a governmental body but contains no express public forum requirement. Because the trial court’s ruling was based on Eller’s exercise of her right to petition the government—not free speech—the public forum requirement had no bearing on the court’s decision. The statute’s text and prior Connecticut Supreme Court precedent established that the public forum language applies only to free speech claims, not to petition-the-government claims.
Key Takeaways
- Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute protects communications to government bodies about matters of public concern even when those communications are not made in a public forum.
- The public forum requirement in the anti-SLAPP statute applies only to claims based on the “right of free speech,” not to claims based on the “right to petition the government.”
- Claims must be properly preserved at the trial court level; raising an issue for the first time in a motion for reconsideration does not preserve it for appellate review.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important distinction in Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute between protected forms of communication. Because the public forum requirement applies only to free speech claims and not to petition-the-government claims, individuals and entities can seek anti-SLAPP protection for communications made to government bodies (such as ethics complaints or grievance filings) even if those communications were not made in a public or open forum. This interpretation significantly strengthens anti-SLAPP protections for complaints filed with government agencies and officials.
The decision also reinforces fundamental appellate procedure regarding issue preservation. Parties cannot circumvent the requirement to raise issues at trial by attempting to introduce them for the first time in post-appeal motions. This procedural holding ensures that trial courts have a fair opportunity to address all arguments before appeal and prevents the appellate process from becoming a vehicle for raising entirely new theories of liability.