From the Londonderry Times
Chris Paul
October 25, 2026
Front Page, Londonderry, News, NH
Less than two months after being fired by three of the five Town Councilors, Shaun Mulholland will be looking to find out if a jury will agree that what was done on Sept. 21 was legal.
Mulholland, the former Londonderry Town Manager filed a lawsuit on Wednesday, Oct. 14, against the Town of Londonderry, arguing that the Town Council violated his employment contract, constitutional due process rights and provisions of the town charter when it voted to remove him from office.
The complaint, filed in Rockingham County Superior Court, asks a judge to declare the council’s 3-2 vote invalid and unenforceable. Mulholland also seeks damages for alleged breach of contract and violations of his constitutional rights. He has requested a jury trial.
The lawsuit names the Town of Londonderry as the defendant and alleges that the council failed to follow required procedures before terminating his employment. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the complaint does not establish that the town violated the law.
At the center of the dispute is Mulholland’s employment agreement, signed in March 2025, and provisions of the Londonderry Town Charter governing the removal of a town manager.
According to the complaint, Mulholland’s agreement provided for a three-year term ending May 31, 2028. He began serving as town manager in June 2025 at an annual salary of $178,000 and remained in the position until the council’s Sept. 21 vote.
Mulholland’s attorneys argue that the council needed at least four affirmative votes to remove him, rather than the three votes cast in favor of termination.
The complaint states that Council Chair Ron Dunn, Vice Chair Shaun Faber and Councilor Ted Combes voted to remove Mulholland, while Councilors Dan Bouchard and Deb Paul opposed the action.
The filing also argues that the town charter required the council to adopt a resolution at least 30 days before a proposed removal. That resolution was to state the council’s intention, explain its reasons and identify an effective date.
Under the cited charter provision, the manager could then demand a public hearing within 10 days of receiving the resolution. If a hearing was requested, removal could not occur until after the hearing.
Mulholland alleges that the council adopted no advance resolution and gave him no opportunity for a public hearing before voting to terminate him.
The complaint also cites Section 2.12 of the town charter, which it says required the question to be postponed until the next regular meeting if a councilor objected when the question was first presented. According to the filing, Bouchard and Paul objected to holding the termination vote on Sept. 21, but the council proceeded.
The complaint further states that Paul told the Union Leader she did not know the council would vote on Mulholland’s removal until 5:30 p.m. that day, shortly before the meeting.
In addition to alleging breach of contract, Mulholland argues that the town violated his constitutional right to procedural due process.
The filing contends that the employment agreement and town charter gave him a protected interest in continued employment by limiting the circumstances and procedures under which he could be removed.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, the complaint argues that public employees with a protected property interest in their jobs are entitled to notice of the grounds for termination and an opportunity to respond before being dismissed.
Mulholland alleges that the town provided neither advance notice nor an opportunity to be heard before the Sept. 21 vote. He seeks relief under federal civil rights law, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims involving the deprivation of constitutional rights.
Another central issue is whether state law overrides the town charter’s protections for the town manager.
The complaint argues that state law, RSA 49-D:2, II(c), allows Londonderry’s charter to establish additional provisions governing the town manager’s job security. Mulholland’s attorneys contend that the charter’s requirement for four council votes, advance notice and the opportunity for a public hearing does not conflict with state law and therefore remains enforceable.
The filing says the council improperly relied on the position that state law allowed removal by a simple majority. It asks the court to determine that the relevant charter provisions are not preempted by state law.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the Sept. 21 removal invalid and to find that the town violated the terms of Mulholland’s employment agreement and his due process rights.
Mulholland also seeks compensation for lost wages, employment benefits and other damages, along with attorney’s fees, interest and court costs.
The complaint does not specify a total dollar amount for the damages sought.
The filing represents Mulholland’s allegations and legal arguments. The court has not ruled on the claims, and the lawsuit’s filing does not determine whether the council’s actions were lawful.