WESTBROOK – A recent decision by a federal judge has freed Mayor Colleen Hilton as a defendant from a lawsuit filed by former Fire Chief David Brock, but the city remains on the hook as to whether Brock was removed from his position properly.

Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that the real question in this case is how to interpret ambiguous language in the city’s charter regarding the tenure, hiring and firing of the fire chief, not whether Hilton dismissed Brock out of ill will.

“There is nothing in the record that suggests bad faith on her part,” Hornby wrote in his May 23 decision.

Hilton announced in her inaugural address in 2010 that Brock would not be reappointed.

Brock responded with a wrongful termination suit, and is seeking punitive damages, saying he not only lost wages, but also suffered damage to his reputation and emotional distress. Brock also is asking for reasonable compensation for his lost job and for attorney’s fees and other legal costs.

The case was originally filed in Cumberland County Superior Court on July 20, 2010, citing Hilton and the city as co-defendants. From there, the case was referred to the U.S. District Court in Portland.

On Feb. 7, 2011, the city filed for a motion of summary judgment, essentially asking the court to decide in its favor without having to go to trial.

At issue are two portions of the city charter pertaining to the position of fire chief. The charter’s original language describes the fire chief position as “chief engineer of the fire department,” and states that the city’s mayor may appoint the chief for a one-year term, and must annually choose whether to renew the appointment. Attorney Ed Benjamin, who was not available this week for comment, said in a past interview that this clause is the justification for the mayor’s dismissing Brock.

Brock’s argument focuses on a 1967 state law amending the Westbrook charter to include a section that, Brock’s attorneys argue, allows the chief to remain in office “until retirement, resignation or death, or removal by good and sufficient cause, on complaint of the Mayor, such complaint being sustained by a majority vote of the full Council.”

Hornby called both provisions “facially contradictory.” While he did not rule on Brock’s case against the city, he did write that the original part of the city charter should have been repealed by the 1967 amendment, and called the fact that it wasn’t “a legislative oversight.” Further, Hornby removed the mayor from the case as a defendant.

“Because the provisions on tenure are facially confusing, and because the mayor consulted legal counsel before acting, I find that she is entitled to qualified immunity on the only federal claim asserted against her,” Hornby wote. “I also conclude, however, that the facially confusing provisions do in fact provide continuous tenure (not just a renewable one-year appointment) for the fire chief, especially when viewed in the context of how they were adapted by the Maine Legislature and the voters of Westbrook.”

The court docket shows the case will go to trial on Aug. 1. Brock’s attorney, Barbara Goodwin, was not available for comment.

When asked about the case on Friday, Hilton said, “We really are still contemplating our response to that,” and declined further comment.