The Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld a lower court's decision that dismissed defamation claims against Fauna J. Eller, a former town official, under the state's anti-SLAPP statute. The ruling, released on June 30, 2026, affects the plaintiffs, who include former town officials and residents, and highlights the legal protections for government officials when they speak on matters of public concern.
The case, Ancona v. Eller (AC48197), stems from allegations made by Eller in an email and subsequent ethics complaint, where she accused several town officials, including Benjamin Ancona Jr., of misconduct. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the protections afforded to public officials under the anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case are Benjamin Ancona Jr., a former town attorney, and several other former town officials and residents, including Jennifer Ancona, Maria Pane, and Beth DelBuono. They filed a lawsuit against Eller, claiming defamation and other related charges after she accused them of unethical behavior in an email dated August 25, 2023.
Eller's email alleged that Benjamin Ancona Jr. had conflicts of interest and was not representing the best interests of the town. She also claimed that Maria Pane and Jennifer Ancona pressured her office regarding assessment decisions and attempted to influence property tax reductions for political donors. Following these allegations, Eller filed an ethics complaint against the plaintiffs, which was later dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit in May 2024, asserting that Eller's statements were defamatory and harmful to their reputations. They argued that her actions were not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because they were not made in a public forum and that she, as a government official, should not have the same protections as private citizens.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Appellate Court, led by Judge Westbrook along with Judges Cradle and Elgo, affirmed the lower court's decision to grant Eller's special motion to dismiss. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to preserve their claim that Eller, as a town official, was not entitled to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court stated, "The plaintiffs’ claim that Eller was not entitled to the protections afforded under § 52-196a is not properly before us."
The court further explained that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Eller's statements were not related to her right to petition the government on a matter of public concern. The ruling emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute applies broadly to protect individuals exercising their rights to free speech and petitioning the government.
Impact
This ruling is significant for public officials and citizens alike, as it clarifies the protections available under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute. By affirming the dismissal of the defamation claims, the court has reinforced the principle that public officials can speak on matters of public concern without fear of being sued for defamation, as long as their statements relate to their official duties.
The decision may encourage more public officials to engage in open discourse about government affairs, knowing that their rights to free speech and petitioning are protected. It also serves as a reminder for citizens to consider the legal implications of their claims when filing lawsuits against public officials.
What's Next
The plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court, but details on whether they will pursue this route were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.