A Massachusetts newspaper, The Martha’s Vinyard Times, is reporting that a lawsuit brought by former Tisbury Fire Chief Gregory Leland against the town has been dismissed with prejudice after he failed to appear for a status review hearing.

Chief Leland filed suit against the Town of Tisbury and its select board in Dukes County Superior Court in April 2025, alleging that his termination in 2024 violated his employment agreement and deprived him of constitutionally required notice and an opportunity to be heard. A copy of the complaint is provided below.

Chief Leland was appointed fire chief in 2020. In July 2024, he was placed on paid administrative leave while the town investigated management and operational issues within the fire department. The investigation examined a number of management and personnel concerns within the department, including concerns related to Chief Leland’s relationship with another department member. According to published reports, employees raised issues involving favoritism, scheduling, communication, and department morale. Leland denied engaging in favoritism and maintained that town officials were aware of the relationship.

An investigative report prepared for the town concluded that morale within the department had deteriorated and identified the relationship as one of the issues contributing to concerns within the department. Then-Town Administrator Jay Grande reportedly found no proof of favoritism, while concluding that the perception of favoritism needed to be addressed.

Following an executive session on October 24, 2024, Chief Leland was terminated.

In his lawsuit, Leland alleged that the town failed to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to defend himself. Among other things, he claimed that requests for records, access to fire department personnel, and information concerning witnesses were not fully honored. He contended that the deficiencies deprived him of due process and resulted in a wrongful termination.

Leland sought damages of $152,048.16, representing his annual salary, as well as costs, interest and attorneys’ fees.

According to the Martha’s Vinyard Times, the case encountered difficulties earlier this year when Leland’s attorneys, Matthew David Provencher and Katherine McNamara Feodoroff, sought permission to withdraw. According to an affidavit filed in support of their request, there had been a breakdown in communications with the chief “and therefore a concomitant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”

Chief Leland did not appear for a July 7 hearing concerning the attorneys’ request to withdraw. The court subsequently allowed their withdrawal.

On July 15, Superior Court Judge Peter B. Krupp warned that Chief Leland’s failure to appear personally, or through new counsel, at a future hearing could result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

According to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, a status review hearing was scheduled for October 5. Neither Leland nor an attorney representing him appeared when the matter was initially called. The newspaper reports that the case was called again at approximately 3 p.m., but Leland again was not present.

The Times quoted Judge Krupp as stating: “No sign of Mr. Leland here. It seems to me the case ought to be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”

The newspaper reports that Judge Krupp dismissed the case with prejudice. However, as of 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time on October 6, 2026, the court’s electronic docket through Lexis did not contain an entry reflecting that the case had been dismissed.

By the way… Massachusetts law recognizes two different statutory structures for municipal fire chiefs, commonly referred to as strong chiefs or weak chiefs. Under the so-called “strong chief” law, G.L. c. 48, § 42, the fire chief has broad statutory authority over the administration of the department, including personnel, equipment and departmental rules. Under the “weak chief” structure of G.L. c. 48, § 42A, greater authority remains with the municipality’s governing body. Municipalities must affirmatively adopt the applicable statutory framework.

Under G.L. c. 48, § 42, the strong chief receives not only broad administrative authority but also job protection: the select board may remove the chief only “for cause” and “after a hearing.” By contrast, under the weak-chief statute, G.L. c. 48, § 42A, the department is under the direction of the select board and, in a town not subject to civil service, the board may remove the chief “at pleasure.”

Our research found no indication that Tisbury adopted the strong-chief provisions of § 42. This would also seem to be supported by the fact Chief Leland did not make reference to the strong chief law in the complaint.