For the second time in two months, a female Newtown police officer has filed suit against the town and its police chief, David Kullgren, alleging discrimination, retaliation, and continuous denial of promotions. Paula Wickman, like Felicia Figol, the former Newtown officer who filed suit last month, accused the Newtown Police Department (NPD) of “treating female officers, including the Plaintiff, more harshly and with stricter scrutiny than similarly situated male officers.”
“The Plaintiff reasonably believed, and avers, that Chief Kullgren was actively attempting to prevent her advancement through manufactured complaints, retaliatory oversight, heightened scrutiny, and manipulation of the promotional process,” reads the suit. “Other female officers within the Newtown Police Department, including Maryhelen McCarthy and Felicia Figol, expressed concerns about systemic bias and Chief Kullgren’s treatment of women within the department.”
Per the complaint, filed on June 10, Wickman has been a Newtown police officer since 2011. Around November 2021, she suffered a work-related injury and “remained out of work on workers’ compensation from approximately November 2021 through September 2023.” Wickman alleged that after Kullgren became chief in January 2022, he displayed “hostility toward her” due to her “prolonged workers’ compensation absence and her assertion of rights associated therewith.” Wickman returned to full duty around September 2023.
“Following her return to full duty, and particularly upon her return to patrol, the Plaintiff [Wickman] was subjected to hostility, dismissive treatment, belittling conduct, heightened scrutiny, and retaliatory oversight by Chief Kullgren and/or those acting under his authority,” reads the suit.
In her complaint, Wickman cites two examples of the alleged hostility. She accused one officer, Tim Schoen, of refusing to “back [her] up” on a call because “he believed she had improperly assigned or ‘kicked’ a domestic-related matter to him.” She also accused Schoen of “openly” making “disparaging remarks” about her at a morning roll call, “including statements to the effect that she was known for ‘kicking domestics.'”
“Upon information and belief, Officer Schoen also told his supervisors to ‘write me up’ because he did not like the Plaintiff,” reads the suit. “Despite the Department’s express knowledge of Officer Schoen’s refusal to respond to a call with the Plaintiff, coupled with his conduct toward the Plaintiff, no Department Review or comparable investigation or discipline was initiated against him.”
Around December 2023, Wickman alleged that the department left an Administrative Lieutenant role vacant, which, if filled, would have opened up a Sergeant position for Wickman, who was next in line for promotion at the time. Around June 2024, Wickman said that after another officer was made lieutenant, making her the “number one candidate on the Sergeant promotional list” and “qualified for advancement.” However, her hopes for advancement were stifled after Kullgren allegedly opened two disciplinary investigations against her and tried to open a third, which she believes indicates a departmental propensity to disparately discipline its male and female officers.
“On or about September 26, 2024, the Plaintiff was made the subject of a Department Review, arising from a minor court delay and verbal comment allegedly overheard by a State’s Attorney,” reads the complaint. “On or about September 27, 2024, Chief Kullgren ordered an Internal Affairs investigation into the Plaintiff concerning her handling of a domestic-related call.”
Despite Wickman’s male supervisor’s alleged involvement in the incident, Wickman claims she was “singled out and disciplined, while the male supervisor was not subjected to comparable discipline.”
“Upon information and belief, the complaint underlying the DR [Department Review] was used as a pretext to justify not promoting the Plaintiff to the position of Sergeant,” reads the complaint.
Wickman claims that she responded to a domestic violence call on September 27, 2024. She claims to have consulted her male supervisor while on the scene, “who advised Plaintiff that the matter was not a domestic violence incident” and that her response was “deemed appropriate.”
“Immediately following the domestic violence call, Chief Kullgren took issue with the Plaintiff’s disposition of the call and singled out the Plaintiff for discipline, while declining to discipline the male supervisor involved in the same incident,” reads the suit.
Wickman said that her supervisor “was disengaged during the incident and failed to process potential evidence,” but that he was only issued “informal counseling” for his role. On the other hand, she alleges that Kullgren recommended she receive “severe discipline in the form of a three-week suspension before any meaningful Loudermill hearing and without first providing documentation of his findings of the policy violations allegedly at issue.”
In public sector jobs, Loudermill hearings are a legally required part of any disciplinary process in which an employer intends to impose severe discipline on an employee. These hearings allow employees to share their own side of the story before a final disciplinary decision is imposed.
“The Plaintiff was further advised, in substance, that she could lose her job if she proceeded before the Police Commission,” reads the suit. “The Plaintiff was denied fundamental fairness in connection with said disciplinary process, including, upon information and belief, being informed that Chief Kullgren wanted to suspend her for three weeks or take the matter to the Police Commission before she was provided with findings, accusations, or a fair opportunity to review and respond to the alleged misconduct.”
On January 7, 2025, the Police Commission allegedly determined “only a written warning was appropriate, thereby undermining the severity of the discipline sought by Chief Kullgren.” The allegedly discriminatory discipline did not stop there, however; Wickman said that Kullgreen “further targeted” her by going to “great lengths to amplify” an “informal” and ultimately “unfounded” citizen complaint filed against her. In addition to these disciplinary processes, Wickman accused her direct supervisor, Sgt. Scott Ruzcyzck, of creating “a hostile work environment,” which was “so intolerable” that she “felt compelled to leave the night shift in order to remove herself from that environment.”
Wickman claimed that the pattern of passing her up for promotion continued throughout 2025. After the department’s promotional list for sergeant expired in March, she claimed to have sat for the promotional exam around August, and that she “ranked first on the eligibility list.” Despite her assertions that, for the second year in a row, she had all the necessary qualifications for promotion to sergeant, Wickman accused Kullgren of further undermining her opportunities for advancement.
“The Plaintiff’s awards and commendations were omitted from the promotional materials submitted to the Police Commissioners, while her disciplinary history was presented in a detailed and unfavorable manner,” reads the suit. “Upon information and belief, the disciplinary history of the successful male candidate was not presented with the same completeness, detail, or emphasis.”
Wickman claimed that on October 20, 2025, she was given the role of “Acting Sergeant,” a move she asserts was “a pretext designed to withhold from her title, status, compensation, and career advancement associated with the position.” She further alleged that the decision was made “at least in part, because of her sex.” Wickman said the department’s use of her to “perform supervisory or quasi-supervisory functions” was a “part of the same discriminatory pattern alleged herein and constitutes an adverse employment action.” Ultimately, Wickman said the Police Commission promoted Tim Schoen, “a male officer and lower ranked-candidate,” to the rank of sergeant on September 2, 2025, upon Kullgren’s recommendation.
“The Plaintiff’s bypass for promotion was consistent with Chief Kullgren’s ongoing pattern of suppressing the advancement of senior female officers and retaliating against the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity,” reads the suit. “As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered lost earnings, lost promotional opportunities, damage to career advancement, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, and other compensable losses.”
Wickman’s suit ultimately accuses the Town and Kullgren of sexual discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation and the creation of a hostile work environment. She is suing for back pay, lost wages and compensation, lost employment benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and pre- and post-judgement interest, in an amount exceeding $15,000.
In response to Inside Investigator’s inquiries, Newtown’s attorney, Bruce Walczak, stated it is the town’s policy not to comment on pending litigation. Wickman’s attorney, Francesco Picone, provided Inside Investigator with a statement.
“The allegations in the complaint are deeply troubling,” said Picone. “Officer Wickman has faithfully served the Town of Newtown for more than a decade and, despite being qualified and ranked first for promotion to Sergeant, she has been subjected to heightened scrutiny, disparate discipline, a hostile work environment, and ultimately passed over for promotion, due to, at least in part, her sex. No employee should ever have to tolerate discrimination or retaliation in the workplace. We intend to hold the Town accountable for the harm they have caused.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
