Former Everett housing official sues mayor, city, alleging political retaliation over election support

By The Advocate

 

A longtime member of the Everett Housing Authority has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city and newly elected Mayor Robert Van Campen of illegally removing him from office in retaliation for supporting the mayor’s political opponent during the 2025 election campaign.

Philip T. Colameta, who served on the Everett Housing Authority for 13 years, alleges in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts that his March 2026 removal violated his constitutional rights to free speech and due process, as well as state laws governing the dismissal of housing authority board members.

The lawsuit seeks reinstatement to the board, back pay and benefits, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and other relief. Colameta was earning $10,000 annually as a housing authority member and had been appointed to a five-year term running through February 2029, according to the complaint.

The suit names both the City of Everett and Van Campen individually as defendants.

At the center of the dispute is Colameta’s support for former Mayor Carlo DeMaria, whom Van Campen defeated in a closely contested November 2025 mayoral election. Colameta alleges city officials targeted him because he openly campaigned for DeMaria and opposed Van Campen’s candidacy.

“The actions of the City of Everett and Mayor Van Campen in removing Plaintiff from his position were taken solely to punish Plaintiff for his constitutionally protected political speech and association,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit paints the removal as part of a broader political purge following the election, alleging Van Campen “has sought retribution against other employees of the City of Everett who supported former Mayor DeMaria.”

Van Campen took office in January 2026 after a contentious campaign that marked a major political shift in Everett, a city north of Boston where DeMaria had served as mayor for nearly two decades. The lawsuit does not provide examples of alleged retaliation against other city employees, but it repeatedly characterizes the actions against Colameta as politically motivated.

According to the complaint, tensions escalated in February when Christopher Connolly, identified as a mayoral assistant, called Colameta and informed him that Van Campen wanted his resignation from the housing authority.

Colameta refused, the lawsuit says.

“In response Mr. Connolly stated that Mayor Van Campen was willing to go to the City Council to have Mr. Colameta formally removed from his position,” the complaint alleges.

Several weeks later, on March 3, Connolly allegedly left Colameta a voicemail asking “what was transpiring” regarding his position on the authority. Later that day, Colameta learned that Van Campen had placed an item on the City Council agenda requesting action to remove him from the board.

The City Council voted on the matter during a March 9 meeting while Colameta was out of state and unable to attend, according to the filing.

The complaint argues that the council meeting did not constitute the formal hearing required under Massachusetts law for removing a housing authority member. Instead, Colameta contends he was dismissed without written charges, advance notice or an opportunity to defend himself.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 121B, Section 6 allows removal of housing authority members for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office,” but only after written charges are provided at least 14 days before a hearing.

The statute also guarantees the right to counsel and an opportunity to be heard.

Colameta alleges none of those protections were provided.

The complaint includes excerpts from the March 9 City Council discussion in which some councilors questioned whether the removal complied with state law.

City Councillor Anthony DiPierro, according to the filing, argued during the meeting that housing authority appointments are governed by state statute and that members can only be removed for specific causes after a formal hearing process.

“This just really does not pass the smell test to me,” DiPierro said, according to the complaint.

City Councillor Stephanie Rogers also allegedly opposed immediate removal because there was “no further information on why he’s being removed in the packet.”

The lawsuit claims those comments demonstrate city officials understood the legal deficiencies surrounding Colameta’s dismissal.

“It was obvious that whether other members of the City Council voted to approve the removal of Mr. Colameta or not, they all realized what was occurring, namely an act of retribution to punish a civil servant for his political opinions and his free speech,” the complaint states.

Colameta says he discovered two letters from Van Campen upon returning to Massachusetts on March 10.

One letter, dated March 3, requested his resignation effective March 9 and stated that if he failed to resign, the mayor “may petition the City Council to remove” him.

However, the lawsuit notes that Van Campen had already sent a March 4 letter to the City Council formally requesting Colameta’s removal before the deadline to resign had expired.

The mayor’s letter to the council allegedly did not accuse Colameta of inefficiency, misconduct or neglect of duty.

A second letter, dated March 10, informed Colameta that Van Campen “will not be reappointing you to the Everett Housing Authority board, effective March 10, 2026.”

The lawsuit argues the mayor lacked authority to effectively terminate an existing appointment before the expiration of the term.

Housing authorities in Massachusetts oversee public housing operations and affordable housing programs. Members are often appointed to fixed terms intended to provide continuity and insulation from political pressure.

Colameta’s attorneys argue his position was not a policymaking role requiring political loyalty to the mayor.

“In his position as a Member of the Everett Housing Authority, Mr. Colameta was not employed as a policymaker,” the complaint states. “Mr. Colameta was not significantly connected to policy making as a Member of the Everett Housing Authority.”

That distinction is important because federal courts have recognized limited exceptions allowing elected officials to dismiss certain high-level policymaking employees for political reasons. Colameta argues no such exception applies in his case.

The complaint alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments under federal civil rights law, specifically 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It also asserts claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and accuses Van Campen individually of intentional interference with contractual or advantageous relations.

Under the First Amendment claims, Colameta argues he engaged in protected political speech and association by campaigning for DeMaria and opposing Van Campen during the election.

The lawsuit alleges that support was a “substantial and motivating factor” behind his removal.

“The First Amendment right to association includes a right to be free of discharge in public employment merely because of political affiliation and political speech,” the complaint states.

The Fourteenth Amendment claims focus on procedural due process. Colameta contends he had a property interest in completing his term on the housing authority and could not legally be removed without proper notice and hearing procedures.

“Procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice, a neutral decision maker and an opportunity to be heard,” the lawsuit states. “Mr. Colameta had no notice, no neutral decision maker and no meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

The complaint also accuses Everett of adopting or executing an unconstitutional policy through the actions of the mayor and City Council, arguing the city itself can be held liable because the alleged violations stemmed from decisions by top municipal policymakers.

Colameta’s attorney, Mitchell J. Notis of Brookline, filed the lawsuit in federal court seeking a jury trial on all counts.

The suit says Colameta suffered lost wages and benefits, emotional distress and a reduction in anticipated pension benefits as a result of the dismissal.

The case could test the boundaries between political patronage and protected speech in local government appointments, particularly in the wake of hard-fought municipal elections.

Political dismissals in public employment have long been subject to constitutional scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that government workers generally cannot be fired solely for political affiliation unless party loyalty is an appropriate requirement for the position.

Colameta’s lawsuit argues his role on the housing authority was administrative and civic in nature rather than political.

The filing repeatedly emphasizes his family’s longstanding involvement in Everett civic affairs and his history of service to residents seeking housing assistance.

“Mr. Colameta served as a Member of the Everett Housing Authority to benefit members of the Everett community and to help them with their housing needs,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit does not indicate whether Colameta has pursued any separate administrative remedies or state court challenges related to his removal.

As of Monday, no response from the city or Van Campen had been included in court filings attached to the complaint. The defendants will have an opportunity to answer the allegations in federal court.

If successful, Colameta could be reinstated to the housing authority board and awarded damages. The case also could prompt broader scrutiny of how municipalities handle appointments and removals following political transitions.

For now, the lawsuit underscores lingering tensions from Everett’s 2025 mayoral race and raises questions about the intersection of local politics, public employment and constitutional protections.

The complaint ultimately frames Colameta’s dismissal not as an isolated personnel dispute, but as a warning about political retaliation in municipal government.

“The retaliatory termination of Mr. Colameta’s employment as a Member of the Everett Housing Authority,” the suit states, “constitutes interference through threats, intimidation or coercion.”

In an email statement released by Mayor Robert Van Campen regarding the lawsuit, it read: “We’re grateful for Mr. Colameta’s years of service, but at this point I believe it’s in the best interest of the City of Everett and the Everett Housing Authority to create space for new representation. The work of the Housing Authority is critical to supporting some of our most vulnerable residents, and it’s important that the board continues to reflect strong engagement and a range of perspectives. Bringing in other qualified members of the community will help strengthen that work and maintain public confidence in the board’s role and responsibilities.”