Judge's ruling on Gagne's motion for injunction

I received a copy of the Fall River Superior Court decision on Mr. Gagne's motion for preliminary injunction and posted the decision here (in MS Word format).
The ruling denies Mr. Gagne's motion for a preliminary injunction to force the town to retain him.
The standard of review used in deciding the motion was,

"A preliminary injunction is properly granted when the moving party demonstrates: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is a substantial risk of irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted; and (3) the balancing of the equities tips in favor of the moving party"

The decision on the motion considers ...

...two of the four issues raised by the town in their lawsuit for declaratory judgment.
The first issue was whether or not the contract was in violation of the Open Meeting law. The judge found the time for bringing an action on that basis had lapsed and therefore was not a reason to dismiss the motion.
The judge did review Chapter 358 of the Acts of 1992 which created the position of Executive Administrator in the town and ruled that the contract did violate that statute. The court said,

"For the purpose of this motion for a preliminary injunction, the court concludes that the renewal provision in Gagne's employment agreement violates Chapter 358 of the Acts of 1992 and therefore Gagne has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits."

While the ruling applies only to the motion of preliminary injunction, the ruling bodes well for the town's argument that the contract renewal provision is not valid.