Rhode Island court tosses Burrillville counterclaim against turf project opponent

The Rhode Island Superior Court dismissed Burrillville’s counterclaim against resident Roberta Lacey, finding her opposition to an artificial turf project was protected petitioning activity under the state’s Anti-SLAPP law. The ruling also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs and leaves damage claims for later proceedings.

Why it matters: - The ruling reinforces Rhode Island’s Anti-SLAPP protections for residents who challenge government action on matters of public concern. - The court found that delay and added cost caused by lawful petitioning cannot be turned into personal liability. - The decision could affect how towns and project opponents approach disputes over land use, environmental review and public participation.

What happened: - The Rhode Island Superior Court granted summary judgment to Burrillville resident Roberta Lacey on Aug. 26, 2026. - The court dismissed the Town of Burrillville’s counterclaim in Roberta Lacey v. Town of Burrillville, et al., C.A. No. PC-2024-04858, consolidated with C.A. No. PC-2024-05161, in Providence County Superior Court. - Lacey was represented by Desautel Browning Law of Newport. - The court found the Town’s counterclaim was barred by Rhode Island’s Anti-SLAPP statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-33-1 et seq. - The court also awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-33-2(d). - The court reserved the issue of compensatory and punitive damages for later proceedings.

The details: - Lacey objected to the Town’s plan to install an artificial turf field at Burrillville High School. - Her concern centered on whether PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, could reach groundwater in the Town’s aquifer overlay districts. - Lacey raised her concerns with state environmental and public health agencies, the Burrillville School Committee, the Harrisville Fire District, the Pascoag Utility District and Town officials. - Lacey also submitted a public petition with 727 signatures opposing the project. - After the Town moved ahead, Lacey filed two civil actions seeking judicial review of the Town’s compliance with land use and environmental requirements. - On Aug. 15, 2024, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the Rhode Island Department of Health sent a joint letter to the Burrillville Town Council. - The agencies said they were “most concerned about the potential for PFAS from the turf field to contaminate groundwater in the area.” - The letter cited sampling data from a comparable field in North Smithfield where a downgradient drinking water well exceeded Rhode Island’s PFAS drinking water standard. - In April 2025, the Superior Court found Lacey had “more than established a prima facie case” that the project needed Planning Board review before development began. - The Town had not sought that review before moving forward. - Instead of answering Lacey’s claims alone, the Town filed a counterclaim against Lacey personally. - The Town alleged tortious interference with a contractual relationship and civil conspiracy. - The Town sought to hold Lacey liable for alleged delay and added cost tied to her opposition.

Between the lines: - The court’s reasoning turned on the difference between protected petitioning and conduct aimed at interfering with a private contract. - The Town’s counterclaim pointed to Lacey’s communications with government bodies, participation in public proceedings and filing of lawsuits, not to any communication with the turf contractor. - That framing mattered because the Anti-SLAPP statute protects citizens who seek government action on public issues. - Marisa Desautel, principal at Desautel Browning Law and counsel for Lacey, said the case fits the kind of claim the legislature intended the statute to stop.

What’s next: - The court will later address compensatory and punitive damages. - Any remaining proceedings will follow after the fee award and anti-SLAPP ruling. - The outcome may shape how future public-project disputes are litigated in Rhode Island.

The bottom line: - Burrillville cannot use a counterclaim to punish a resident for petitioning government about a public project. The Superior Court treated Lacey’s opposition as constitutionally protected activity and shut the claim down.