Norwich sued by former assistant town clerk; Town still not saying much in public

A former Assistant Town Clerk has sued the Town of Norwich, alleging workplace harassment, disability discrimination and whistleblower retaliation after she was fired last summer. Judy Trussell, who says she worked for Norwich for about 30 years, including 15 years as Assistant Town Clerk, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 23, 2025.

In her complaint, she alleges that after Lily Trajman became Town Clerk in 2023, Trussell repeatedly raised concerns about land records containing Social Security numbers, mishandling of confidential documents, and election practices she believed violated state and federal law.

The Town’s March 16, 2026 answer denies most of those allegations.

But the parties agree on one key point: in June 2025, federal ballots still subject to preservation requirements were mistakenly destroyed. Trussell says Trajman blamed her after a Town employee mistakenly destroyed the ballots, then revoked her appointment as Assistant Town Clerk, which ended her employment.

The Town admits the ballots were destroyed, but says Trussell failed to adequately perform her duties in connection with the incident and also advised Trajman not to report it to the Vermont Secretary of State. In addition, the Town argues that Trussell was an at-will employee.

Addendum B

In a separate motion, the Town is also asking the Court to “strike” part of the complaint dealing with Addendum B to the personnel policy, as “completely irrelevant and immaterial” to the case. Trussell alleges Addendum B was adopted by the Selectboard in October 2024 to make clear that elected officials such as the Town Clerk were expected to follow personnel-policy standards in how they treat employees, and that Trajman later refused to sign it.

But Trajman is not the only elected official who has not signed Addendum B. The draft minutes from the March 11, 2026 Selectboard meeting indicate that the Selectboard Chair Kimo Griggs declined to sign it for a number of reasons, including that “the VLCT stopped recommending the form.”

Transparency

Then there is the transparency problem. The lawsuit was filed in December, yet the Selectboard and Town Manager do not appear to have publicly acknowledged the suit by name or substance at a public meeting. At the March 11, 2026 meeting, the agenda called for an executive session for pending litigation but no case name was mentioned in open session.

Residents who do not check the court docket themselves would have little idea that the Town is defending a lawsuit involving a longtime employee, destroyed federal ballots, and allegations of retaliation and discrimination. To be clear, the complaint contains allegations, but they have not been proven as facts. Nevertheless, the case is real and could prove costly to defend. Executive sessions for litigation strategy and merits assessment are normal. But there’s no reason to keep the public entirely in the dark.

****

Thanks for reading! Contact me at norwichobserver[at]gmail.com