SAUGUS — A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has upheld an arbitration ruling in favor of former Superintendent of Schools Erin McMahon, a decision that will cost the town almost $500,000.
The court ruled that the Saugus School Committee failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for McMahon’s 2023 dismissal and rejected efforts by town officials to overturn a damages award tied to the remainder of her contract.
The decision marks the culmination of a dispute that began in early 2023, when McMahon was placed on administrative leave, allegedly due to performance concerns that were not publicly detailed at the time and, according to court filings, were not fully disclosed to her during the process.
The decision leaves in place a substantial financial obligation for the town tied to McMahon’s contract, which runs through June 2026.
This comes at a time when Saugus schools are facing a $1.5 million deficit. The budget the School Committee approved reflected a $2.5 million increase from FY26, but the town has indicated the schools will receive only $1 million more. The deficit does not count the $500,000 they owe the former superintendent, which, according to School Committee Chair Thomas Whittredge, will come out of the school budget.
“We are facing a $500,000 legal settlement,” Whittredge said at the March 26 School Committee meeting. “That’s the school department’s responsibility. That’s real money that is going to impact real decisions.”
Based on court documents, the town also contracted with several outside attorneys during the arbitration and legal process, the final cost of which is unknown as of this time.
McMahon, who began serving as superintendent in 2021, was suspended on Feb. 15, 2023, and terminated on Nov. 2, 2023. The members of the School Committee at the time were Chair Vin Serino, Ryan Fisher, Leigh Gerow, Dennis Gould, and John Hatch. Gould is the only one currently serving. Whittredge declined to comment any further, and Gould said, “No comment,” when asked to discuss the arbitration. Crabtree and Serino were contacted multiple times by phone and did not return any requests for comment.
In the months between, she and her attorney repeatedly sought documentation to support the decision to let her go, including the identity of individuals who had allegedly raised complaints.
According to Suffolk Superior Court documents, in a Nov. 7, 2023, letter initiating arbitration proceedings, her attorney wrote, “Please forward to me all the documents on which the Committee intends to rely … and the identity of any person or persons who brought to the Committee’s attention criticisms, complaints, or suggestions.”
That request reflected a broader dispute over whether McMahon had been given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, an issue that became central to the arbitration.
According to filings, McMahon was provided with only a summary of an investigation into her conduct, rather than the full report or underlying materials. The investigation itself was conducted by outside counsel retained through the town manager’s office, rather than directly by the School Committee.
Court records show that, as claims about her leadership surfaced in early 2023, the School Committee directed the town manager, Scott Crabtree, to retain outside consultants to examine her performance.
McMahon later argued that this structure blurred the lines of authority and limited her ability to access the information used to justify her dismissal. The superintendent of schools’ position falls under the purview of the School Committee.
The dispute intensified in the fall of 2023 as the School Committee moved toward termination. After being notified that the committee would vote on her contract, McMahon prepared a written rebuttal based on the limited materials available to her and presented it at a public meeting.
According to court filings, the process moved quickly after that presentation. Immediately following her remarks, a motion was made to terminate her contract, and the committee voted in favor.
McMahon challenged the termination through arbitration, arguing that the committee had violated the terms of her employment agreement, which required written notice of complaints and a showing of “good cause” for dismissal.
The arbitration, conducted under the American Arbitration Association, resulted in a ruling in McMahon’s favor, with an arbitrator concluding the committee had not met the contractual standard required to terminate her.
The arbitrator ordered that McMahon “is to be made whole for all lost wages and benefits from the date of her termination, November 2, 2023, to the end of her Employment Agreement, June 30, 2026, minus post-termination earnings.” The total amount owed to her was later calculated at $454,388.27.
While the arbitration focused on the termination, the case also expanded into a broader legal battle over access to evidence and witness testimony. As part of the arbitration process, subpoenas were issued for several town officials and related parties, including Town Manager Scott Crabtree and Town Accountant Donna Matarazzo.
According to court filings, those subpoenas sought testimony and documents related to the investigation into McMahon’s conduct and the decision to terminate her. McMahon’s attorneys argued that the information was necessary to ensure a fair arbitration process. But several individuals resisted complying with the subpoenas.
In court filings, McMahon alleged that some witnesses “have each indicated an intent to flout the subpoenas,” and had not appeared as required. That prompted McMahon to seek court intervention to enforce the arbitration subpoenas.
A judge partially granted that request, ordering at least one witness, Donna Trumpler, an accounts payable clerk in the school department, to comply after she “did not appear or oppose the motion.”
At the same time, attorneys for the town and other defendants moved to block the subpoenas, arguing that McMahon’s requests were improper and exceeded the scope of the arbitration.
In one filing, they argued that her effort to obtain testimony and documents from third parties represented an attempt to bypass procedural limits, writing that her action sought “to accelerate and grossly expand her legal reach and to circumvent the protections to witnesses and non-parties afforded by the Rules of Civil Procedure.”
They also contended that many of the requested materials were protected by attorney-client privilege, particularly those connected to the investigation conducted by outside counsel.
McMahon’s filings, however, described a situation in which key information was effectively inaccessible. According to her attorneys, the School Committee indicated that the town held the requested records, while the town indicated that the committee was responsible for them, creating what they characterized as a circular process that prevented disclosure.
The dispute over records and testimony unfolded alongside the arbitration and added to the complexity of the case, which also included a separate discrimination complaint filed by McMahon with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Ultimately, the arbitration decision — not the broader litigation — determined the outcome of McMahon’s termination.
The School Committee sought to overturn that decision in Superior Court, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority and made errors in calculating damages and interest.
The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing that arbitration awards are subject to only limited judicial review under Massachusetts law.
In its ruling, the court stated that it was “strictly bound by an arbitrator’s findings and legal conclusions, even if they appear erroneous,” and found no basis to vacate the award.
The judge allowed McMahon’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, denied the committee’s cross-motion, and dismissed its counterclaims.
A final judgment entered in the case formally confirmed the award and required compliance.
While the court’s ruling resolves the legal question of whether her termination met the contractual standard, it does not address broader questions raised during the dispute about how the investigation was conducted, how information was shared with the former superintendent, and how the decision-making process unfolded.
Those questions, however, formed the basis of the arbitration — and ultimately shaped its outcome.
