The Connecticut Appellate Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that a defamation lawsuit against former town official Fauna J. Eller was properly dismissed under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court's decision affects the plaintiffs, who include several former town officials, and reinforces the protections for individuals exercising their rights to petition the government.
The case, Ancona v. Eller (Docket AC48197), centers around allegations made by Eller against the plaintiffs, who were former members of the Newington town government. The court's ruling highlights the importance of the anti-SLAPP statute, designed to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation, which can intimidate individuals from exercising their rights.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case are Benjamin Ancona, Jr., Jennifer Ancona, Maria Pane, Beth DelBuono, Scott DelBuono, Domenic Pane, and Michael Camillo. They filed a lawsuit against Eller, who served as the town tax assessor, claiming defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the town's code of ethics. The dispute arose from an email Eller sent in August 2023, in which she accused various town officials, including Ancona, of misconduct and unethical behavior.
The case reached the Connecticut Appellate Court after a lower court granted Eller’s special motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under General Statutes § 52-196a, the anti-SLAPP statute. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint, arguing that Eller, as a public official, should not be entitled to the protections offered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Appellate Court, comprising Chief Judge Cradle and Judges Elgo and Westbrook, affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not preserve their claim that Eller was not entitled to the anti-SLAPP protections, as they failed to raise this issue during the trial. The court stated, “the plaintiffs concede as much in their reply brief,” acknowledging that they only raised the issue in a motion for reconsideration after the appeal.
Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs' argument regarding whether Eller’s statements were made in a public forum was irrelevant. The trial court had determined that the plaintiffs' complaint targeted Eller’s right to petition the government, which is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court noted, “the public forum issue has no discernable bearing on the judgment before us,” reinforcing that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to government officials when their speech relates to public concerns.
Impact
This ruling sets an important precedent for the application of the anti-SLAPP statute in Connecticut, particularly regarding the protections afforded to public officials. It clarifies that even if the statements made by a public official are not communicated in a public forum, they can still be protected under the anti-SLAPP statute if they relate to government petitions or public concerns. This decision may discourage future lawsuits aimed at silencing public officials and citizens who engage in discussions about government affairs.
The ruling also emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to properly preserve their claims during trial to ensure they can be reviewed on appeal. This aspect of the decision serves as a reminder for individuals involved in legal disputes to carefully articulate their arguments and objections in court proceedings.
What's Next
The plaintiffs may consider seeking further legal options, including a potential appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. However, details regarding any related cases or future actions were not available in the court filing.