Affirming Absolute Litigation Privilege and the Doctrine of Mootness: RI Supreme Court in Evoqua v. Moriarty

Introduction

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC and its affiliate Neptune-Benson sued their former employee, Matthew Moriarty, for allegedly violating a 2010 non-disclosure, non-solicit, and non-compete agreement. After obtaining a preliminary injunction barring Moriarty from competing until the agreement’s expiration in June 2020, the plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add tort and declaratory-relief theories. Moriarty in turn filed an amended counterclaim alleging that key testimony at the injunction hearing had been fraudulent and seeking damages, declaratory relief and a finding of constructive discharge. The Superior Court dismissed virtually all counts under Rhode Island’s “litigation privilege,” and dismissed the remainder on mootness and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds. Moriarty appealed.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in an opinion by Justice Long, affirms. It reaffirms the absolute scope of the litigation privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings, clarifies the application of mootness to expired contractual rights, and underscores that “constructive discharge” is not a stand-alone tort but an element of discrimination or retaliation claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling can be distilled into three principal holdings:

Litigation Privilege: Counts 1, 2, and 6–9 of Moriarty’s counterclaim, all based on testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing, are barred by Rhode Island’s absolute litigation privilege. This protection insulates witnesses and parties from civil liability for statements material to judicial proceedings.
Mootness Doctrine: Count 3—a declaratory-relief claim challenging the enforceability of the 2010 agreement—was properly dismissed as moot. The non-competition provisions expired in June 2020, and neither narrow exception to mootness (capable of repetition yet evading review; extreme public importance) applied.
Constructive Discharge: Count 5 fails as a matter of law because “constructive discharge” is not an independent cause of action and, on its facts, Moriarty’s allegations (aggressive sales tactics reducing commissions) do not rise to an objective showing that his working conditions were so intolerable that resignation was the only choice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court’s dismissal of all counts and remands the record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Vieira v. Meredith (1956) – First adoption of Rhode Island’s absolute litigation privilege for pleadings and testimony in judicial proceedings.
Ims v. Town of Portsmouth (2011) – Reaffirmed the privilege as absolute, citing the policy of encouraging free and candid testimony.
Roberts v. City of Cranston Zoning Board of Review (1982) – Defined “judicial proceeding” to include any context where judicial action is invoked and taken.
In re Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island (2023) – Clarified the mootness analysis and its exceptions.
Federal precedents (e.g., Torrech-Hernández, Suarez) – Adopted for constructive discharge’s objective standard in discrimination contexts.

Legal Reasoning

Litigation Privilege: Rhode Island’s courts have long held that communications “material, pertinent or relevant” to issues in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. The privilege protects witnesses—even if untrained in law—from civil suits arising from their testimony, ensuring that fear of liability does not chill candor at hearings. Because all disputed counts rested on testimony given at the preliminary injunction hearing, they fall squarely within this absolute rule. The Supreme Court rejects Moriarty’s plea for a case-by-case privilege analysis, noting that nearly seventy years of precedent mandate a blanket rule for judicial statements.

Mootness: A declaratory-relief claim loses live controversy when the contractual rights challenged have expired. Here, the 2010 agreement lapsed in June 2020. Neither the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review” nor the “extreme public importance” exception applies: there is no reasonable prospect that Moriarty will again face enforcement of the same expired agreement, nor does the aftermath of an already-expired covenant continue to affect his livelihood in a legally cognizable way.

Constructive Discharge: Under both Rhode Island and First Circuit law, “constructive discharge” is an element of discrimination or retaliation statutes—not an independent tort. Even if construed as part of an undisclosed statutory claim, Moriarty’s generalized allegations of lost commission and aggressive marketing practices do not objectively demonstrate that his working conditions were so “onerous” or “abusive” that he had no choice but to resign.

Impact on Future Cases

Reinforces absolute protection for judicial testimony, foreclosing tort suits based on statements at hearings or in pleadings. Counsel and witnesses must recognize that anything said in court is immune from later defamation, misrepresentation or interference claims.
Clarifies that declaratory challenges to expired agreements are subject to strict mootness rules. Parties must seek timely resolution or risk dismissal.
Emphasizes that “constructive discharge” requires more than dissatisfaction with evolving business practices—it demands an objectively intolerable workplace.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Litigation Privilege: A witness cannot be sued for lies or misstatements made during a court proceeding. This ensures people speak freely without fearing later lawsuits.
Mootness Doctrine: Courts will not decide cases if their rulings won’t change anything in the real world—like asking whether a no-longer-in-force contract is valid.
Constructive Discharge: When an employee’s work environment is so unbearable that a reasonable person feels forced to quit. Simple frustration or lost commissions don’t usually qualify.

Conclusion

In Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. Moriarty, Rhode Island’s Supreme Court delivers a comprehensive reaffirmation of the litigation privilege, a firm statement on the application of mootness to expired contractual obligations, and a careful exposition of the limits of constructive-discharge claims. The ruling underscores the importance of prompt, precise litigation and the need for plaintiffs to ground claims on live controversies and recognized causes of action. By protecting open courtroom communications and demarcating the boundary between workplace dissatisfaction and actionable coercion, the decision will guide practitioners and litigants in shaping pleadings and preserving or challenging claims in future disputes.