A federal judge dismissed the claims of a former Loveland city employee last week who alleged a conspiracy by her employer to deprive her of unemployment benefits and tarnish her reputation.

Michele DiPietro worked as a paralegal for the city attorney’s office during 13 months between 2020 and 2021. In her telling, DiPietro’s request for a disability-based accommodation and her supervisors’ sudden demands that she provide coverage to the customer service desk created a hostile environment for her. When she indicated she would be resigning, the city immediately cut off computer access and interfered with her application for unemployment benefits.

Instead of bringing claims about discrimination, harassment or violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DiPietro alleged her supervisors conspired to deprive her of unemployment benefits and disseminated “false and defamatory information” about her to other government employees.

In a Jan. 14 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang dismissed DiPietro’s lawsuit, finding she did not supply the allegations necessary to sustain any of her claims.

“Because Ms. DiPietro fails to allege that Defendants violated a federal right, the Court’s analysis need not proceed,” Wang wrote in response to DiPietro’s claim of interference with her benefits.

DiPietro’s lawsuit alleged she initially performed well at her job when the COVID-19 pandemic forced employees to work remotely. The problem began in mid-2021 when she returned to the office. Her disability meant DiPietro allegedly had trouble concentrating due to the flow of people at the nearby customer service window.

She asked for a reasonable accommodation, but instead she was ordered to provide customer service coverage, even though it was outside her department. In August, she received a warning for “threatening insubordination” and was reportedly under “retaliatory surveillance and scrutiny.”

On Sept. 27, DiPietro met with then-Deputy City Attorney Vincent Junglas about the difficulty she faced in doing her job. Junglas allegedly informed her that she may be facing imminent disciplinary action. At 4 p.m., DiPietro emailed Junglas of her intent to submit a resignation letter. An hour later, the city locked her out of her email and the computer network.

DiPietro applied for unemployment benefits, which the state denied because Loveland represented that her separation was “voluntary.” After DiPietro appealed and the city declined to contest it, a hearing officer determined DiPietro quit because of “objectively unsatisfactory working conditions” and she was entitled to benefits.

“Among the most serious false statements the Defendants made were the statements that Ms. DiPietro had resigned voluntarily,” her lawyers wrote. “As a direct result of the Defendants’ conspiracy and false statements, Ms. DiPietro was denied unemployment benefits for seven months and was made ineligible for rental assistance during the period of her unemployment, and resulted in the repossession of a 2017 Jeep Wrangler.”

Loveland sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing DiPietro eventually received her benefits without objection from the city. Moreover, employees did not say anything “false and stigmatizing” about DiPietro in connection with her job separation. DiPietro responded that the city provided false information about her to the state’s labor department, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other city employees.

Wang, in granting the motion to dismiss, noted none of the federal laws DiPietro cited contained an individual right to unemployment benefits that the city violated. Moreover, the alleged conspiracy by the city needed to be based on DiPietro’s membership in some class. She had not made any allegations to that effect, Wang wrote.

Finally, Wang observed DiPietro had made a “stigma-plus” claim, meaning the city defamed her and also changed her employment status. The defamation involved statements about alleged misconduct on DiPietro’s part, but Wang concluded the statements were either not actionable or occurred long after her job separation.

“The Court is aware of no authority, and Ms. DiPietro provides none, suggesting that an eight-month lapse between an employee’s termination and an allegedly defamatory statement can sustain a stigma-plus claim,” she wrote, referring to Loveland’s submission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in May 2022.

The case is DiPietro v. City of Loveland et al.