New London — Claiming that Terrence P. Carter intentionally duped the school board in his application to be superintendent of schools, lawyers for the Board of Education and its president on Monday filed a motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit Carter has lodged against the board and President Margaret Mary Curtin.

In the motion — which, if granted by a judge, would put an end to the suit before it reaches trial — the Board of Education's legal team argues that "there is no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide" because "there was no contract ever formed between (Carter) and the board" and that even if a contract did exist, "the contract is void because the board was induced into entered (sic) it by (Carter's) fraudulent conduct."

Carter’s lawsuit alleges that Curtin and the board breached an agreement that attorneys for both sides had negotiated.

In the suit, filed in November, Carter claims he suffered an economic loss of more than $15,000 when he resigned from his job in Chicago, put his home up for sale, relocated to New London, put his personal property in storage and purchased real estate in New London.

The board's attorneys previously argued that Carter is not entitled to any damages, as claimed in his suit, because "he would have been terminated for falsifying his employment application by stating that he had never been convicted of a crime even though he had."

Among the evidence the board's lawyers submitted with the motion is a criminal history record report the FBI sent the Connecticut State Police that shows Carter was convicted in 1983 of shoplifting in New Jersey.

According to the board's filing, the conviction was discovered only after the board rescinded Carter's appointment.

Also included as evidence is a 2004 letter Carter, then a candidate for a job with Chicago Public Schools, wrote to that system's human resource department in which he said he was sentenced to two months of probation for the offense.

He wrote that he had forgotten about the incident and assumed it was expunged from his record.

In his suit, Carter argues that Curtin instructed him to sign the contract as a “pro forma matter” and told him that “she ‘had the votes’ to approve the agreement and that she would handle any issues with the approval of his compensation.”

Carter was unanimously appointed as superintendent in June and signed a contract for the position, but the board held off on ratifying the contract and ultimately rescinded its job offer to him amid revelations of plagiarism and academic misrepresentation.

Though he had not been conferred the degree, Carter referred to himself as “Terrence P. Carter, Ph.D.” in a letter written to the Board of Education last May and in an email sent in June.

Carter also referred to himself as having a Ph.D. in his application for the New London superintendent position and submitted three letters of reference that referred to him as “doctor.”

The board’s response also alleges that “there was fraud in the contract’s inducement” because Carter “plagiarized the letter of interest he submitted to the board as well as answers ... in the application he submitted to the board” and later claimed to have permission to plagiarize the letter.

c.young@theday.com

Twitter: @ColinAYoung