Human Rights v. Campion

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: July 25, 2024
• Docket: 24-cv-701
• Status: Published

Opinion

7ermont Superior Court Filed 06/20/24 Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT VE CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case No. 24-CV-00701 65 State Street Montpelier VT 05602 802-828-2091 www.vermontjudiciary.org

Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Paul Campion

Ruling on Motion to Strike

Plaintiff the Vermont Human Rights Commission ("HRC") brought this case

claiming that Defendant Paul Campion violated the Vermont Fair Housing and Public

Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4500-4507 by discriminating against and harassing

his residential tenant, Ms. Alicia Appleton, on the basis of sex and retaliating against her

when she complained. The HRC seeks relief in the public interest and for the benefit of

Ms. Appleton. Prior to this suit, interactions between Mr. Campion and Ms. Appleton

generated a criminal case and a stalking case, both against Mr. Campion. Mr. Campion

alleges that the criminal charges were "dropped," and the case was sealed pursuant to 13

V.S.A. § 76038(a). He alleges that the stalking case was dismissed.

Mr. Campion has filed a Vt. R. Civ. P. 12@) motion to strike in this case. He

argues the Court should strike numerous parts of the complaint that refer to the criminal

proceeding or include allegations referring to facts ostensibly within the scope of the

criminal or stalking proceedings. He claims that such allegations violate the criminal

court's sealing order and have been conclusively determined in his favor by application of

the claim and issue preclusion doctrines.

Order Page 1 of 4 24-CV-00701 Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Paul Campion I. The Sealing Order

Mr. Campion alleges that the criminal case was “dropped,” and the criminal court

entered a sealing order under 13 V.S.A. § 7603(a).1 He asserts without analysis or

further explanation that the allegations in the complaint violate the sealing order.

Subsection 7603(a) permits the criminal court to seal the “the criminal history

record” when (a) there is no determination of probable cause at arraignment, (b) the case

is dismissed without prejudice prior to trial, or (c) if the prosecutor and defendant so

stipulate. “Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section, upon entry of a sealing

order, the order shall be legally effective immediately and the person whose record is

sealed shall be treated in all respects as if he or she had never been arrested, convicted,

or sentenced for the offense.” 13 V.S.A. § 7607(b)(1) (emphasis added). Assuming that

the sealing order otherwise might apply to certain allegations in the complaint, Mr.

Campion fails to explain why the exception at § 7607(c)(1) would not preserve the HRC’s

ability to use the otherwise sealed information here. Subsection 7607(c)(1) explains that,

despite a sealing order: “An entity that possesses a sealed record may continue to use it

for any litigation or claim arising out of the same incident or occurrence or involving the

same defendant.” 13 V.S.A. § 7607(c)(1). Regardless of the terms of any sealing order,

this provision preserves the HRC’s ability to use otherwise sealed records.2

1 These are bare allegations asserted in briefing. There is no evidence in the record supporting either allegation, nor is any sealing order (or its terms) in the record.

2 Given that determination, the Court need not delve further, at this stage, into the outer reaches of whether Section 7607 acts to somehow constrain all references to some or all past factual events that may be relevant to a cause of action. Order Page 2 of 4 24-CV-00701 Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Paul Campion II. Claim and Issue Preclusion

Mr. Campion alleges that Ms. Appleton sought an order against stalking against

him, and the case was dismissed.3 See 12 V.S.A. §§ 5131–5138. He attempts, with

virtually no analysis or explanation, to leverage that dismissal into a right to strike

factual allegations in the complaint in this case that presumably would have been

relevant to the stalking case. The Court rejects this argument for several reasons.

Both claim preclusion and issue preclusion have well established legal tests. See

Faulkner v. Caledonia Cnty. Fair Ass’n, 2004 VT 123, ¶ 8, 178 Vt. 51, 54; Trepanier v.

Getting Organized, Inc., 155 Vt. 259, 265 (1990). Mr. Campion has not attempted to

explain how the elements of either test are met here, and it is unclear how he possibly

could have on a virtually non-existent record. The request is denied on that basis.

Additionally, even if the stalking suit, arguably, could have been binding in some

manner on the HRC, by statute, stalking proceedings “shall be in addition to any other

available civil or criminal remedies,” 12 V.S.A. § 5136(a). Applying the preclusion

doctrines in a subsequent civil suit based on a prior stalking suit would render the

stalking suit exclusive, not additional, which may well violate that provision. See also 12

V.S.A. § 5133(l) (“A finding by the court pursuant to this chapter that the defendant

stalked or sexually assaulted the plaintiff shall not be admissible in any subsequent civil

proceedings for the purpose of establishing liability.”).4

3 Again, these are bare allegations asserted in briefing.There is no evidence in the record supporting either allegation, nor is any dismissal order or anything else revealing the nature of the allegations in the record.

4 Of course, Ms. Appleton did not bring this action; the HRC did. In light of the Court’s other determinations, it need not resolve Mr. Campion’s claim that the HRC and Ms. Appleton should be viewed as being “in privity” for purposes of preclusion analysis. See Order Page 3 of 4 24-CV-00701 Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Paul Campion Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Campion’s motion to strike is denied.

Electronically signed on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________ Timothy B. Tomasi Superior Court Judge

Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375, 380 (1996) (“A privity relationship generally involves a party so identified in interest with the other party that they represent one single legal right.”) (citation omitted).

Order Page 4 of 4 24-CV-00701 Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Paul Campion