Court date vacated in Curren suit against Greenfield
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A court trial date has been vacated in a civil suit against the city of
Greenfield and its former law director, Conrad Curren, in which he alleges
some current and former Greenfield leaders, "in concert with each other, and with malice of purpose, bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner
unlawfully conspired to terminate (Curren) from the office of law director."
The matter had initially been scheduled for a court trial before visiting Judge Dale Crawford in Highland County Common Pleas Court on Tuesday. On Aug. 15, Crawford filed a briefing schedule that set a new motion for summary judgment to be filed by Sept. 9, a brief in opposition to be filed by Sept. 23, and a reply brief to be filed by Sept. 30. There will not be an oral hearing unless it is requested by either parties, according to Crawford's court entry.
Curren is seeking $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of
$25,000 from Bowman, Everhart, Scott and Wagoner, collectively.
On Aug. 10, Crawford filed a decision denying a motion for summary
judgment filed by the plaintiffs: The city of Greenfield, former city manager Charles Bowman, current council member Harvey Everhart and former council members John Wagoner and Earlene Scott.
According to Crawford¹s entry, on Oct. 16, 2008, Curren was hired as law director by the city of Greenfield for a period of one year, and Everhart, Scott and Wagoner were all members of the city council when the event took place. Bowman was the city manager.
On Nov. 10, 2008, according to the entry, council passed an ordinance that terminated Curren¹s employment and "ratifies all prior action taken on termination of the law director."
In Curren's amended complaint, according to the court entry, Curren
alleges: he was terminated as a result of conspiratorial, fraudulent and
concerted action by the defendants; the action to terminate him was void
because Wagoner was "not an entitled office holder"; the action to terminate him violated his constitutional rights in that he was not given the opportunity to respond; the individual defendants "conspired" to file a
complaint against him before the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and such a complaint contained a forged signature; the defendants engaged in ³fraudulent, malicious activity² which amounted to a "fraudulent termination"; and that the "conspiracy" violated Ohio Sunshine Laws.
In the defendants' motion, they said all of Curren's claims "should fail because (Curren) has not set forth facts to support his various claims."
"The defendants have submitted no evidence to rebut any allegation
(fraud, conspiracy, etc.) made by (Curren) in his amended complaint,"
Crawford wrote. "Thus, the court is left with the legal issue of whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim recognized under Ohio law."
Crawford wrote that it appears Curren was an at-will employee and could have been terminated at any time "for any non-discriminatory reason unless (Curren) can produce facts to support he was hired for a specific term. However, constructing the complaint and ordinances at issue, the court will find there is an issue of material fact and will permit (Curren) to provide evidence and law that he was more than an at-will employee.
"With regard to the claims against the defendants amount to conspiracy and fraud, the court has been moved to dismiss these claims because the defendants are immune ... Council, in hiring and firing (Curren) was engaged in a governmental function and may be immune from suit. However, with respect to the individual defendants, there is an allegation that such action taken against the defendants were unlawful because they were intentional acts maliciously taken in bad faith and thus not subject to immunity. The court has not been presented with any case law that says if you do an act that you are permitted to do, and you do it intentionally and maliciously, you can be liable in damages," Crawford wrote.
Also, according to Crawford's entry, "In addition, the court does not understand (Curren's) fraud allegation regarding the complaint with Disciplinary Counsel and its effect upon (Curren's) discharge. (Curren) alleges that there was a forged signature on the disciplinary complaint but he does not state what that has to do with his cause of action regarding the discharge. This is not a defamation action, it is a discharge situation."
The court granted the motion on the Sunshine Law, saying that, "the court does not believe you can use the provisions in the Sunshine Law to establish a claim for damages."
The court also denied a motion requesting a hearing on Wagoner's ability to be on council.
"With the exception of the Sunshine Law claim, the court will find there are some issues of material facts (and law) and the motion for summary judgment will be denied."
A court trial date has been vacated in a civil suit against the city of Greenfield and its former law director, Conrad Curren, in which he alleges some current and former Greenfield leaders, "in concert with each other, and with malice of purpose, bad faith and in a wanton and reckless manner unlawfully conspired to terminate (Curren) from the office of law director."
The matter had initially been scheduled for a court trial before visiting Judge Dale Crawford in Highland County Common Pleas Court on Tuesday. On Aug. 15, Crawford filed a briefing schedule that set a new motion for summary judgment to be filed by Sept. 9, a brief in opposition to be filed by Sept. 23, and a reply brief to be filed by Sept. 30. There will not be an oral hearing unless it is requested by either parties, according to Crawford's court entry.
Curren is seeking $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of $25,000 from Bowman, Everhart, Scott and Wagoner, collectively.
On Aug. 10, Crawford filed a decision denying a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs: The city of Greenfield, former city manager Charles Bowman, current council member Harvey Everhart and former council members John Wagoner and Earlene Scott.
According to Crawford¹s entry, on Oct. 16, 2008, Curren was hired as law director by the city of Greenfield for a period of one year, and Everhart, Scott and Wagoner were all members of the city council when the event took place. Bowman was the city manager.
On Nov. 10, 2008, according to the entry, council passed an ordinance that terminated Curren¹s employment and "ratifies all prior action taken on termination of the law director."
In Curren's amended complaint, according to the court entry, Curren alleges: he was terminated as a result of conspiratorial, fraudulent and concerted action by the defendants; the action to terminate him was void because Wagoner was "not an entitled office holder"; the action to terminate him violated his constitutional rights in that he was not given the opportunity to respond; the individual defendants "conspired" to file a complaint against him before the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, and such a complaint contained a forged signature; the defendants engaged in "fraudulent, malicious activity" which amounted to a "fraudulent termination"; and that the "conspiracy" violated Ohio Sunshine Laws.
In the defendants' motion, they said all of Curren's claims "should fail because (Curren) has not set forth facts to support his various claims."
"The defendants have submitted no evidence to rebut any allegation (fraud, conspiracy, etc.) made by (Curren) in his amended complaint,"
Crawford wrote. "Thus, the court is left with the legal issue of whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim recognized under Ohio law."
Crawford wrote that it appears Curren was an at-will employee and could have been terminated at any time "for any non-discriminatory reason unless (Curren) can produce facts to support he was hired for a specific term. However, constructing the complaint and ordinances at issue, the court will find there is an issue of material fact and will permit (Curren) to provide evidence and law that he was more than an at-will employee.
"With regard to the claims against the defendants amount to conspiracy and fraud, the court has been moved to dismiss these claims because the defendants are immune ... Council, in hiring and firing (Curren) was engaged in a governmental function and may be immune from suit. However, with respect to the individual defendants, there is an allegation that such action taken against the defendants were unlawful because they were intentional acts maliciously taken in bad faith and thus not subject to immunity. The court has not been presented with any case law that says if you do an act that you are permitted to do, and you do it intentionally and maliciously, you can be liable in damages," Crawford wrote.
Also, according to Crawford's entry, "In addition, the court does not understand (Curren's) fraud allegation regarding the complaint with Disciplinary Counsel and its effect upon (Curren's) discharge. (Curren) alleges that there was a forged signature on the disciplinary complaint but he does not state what that has to do with his cause of action regarding the discharge. This is not a defamation action, it is a discharge situation."
The court granted the motion on the Sunshine Law, saying that, "the court does not believe you can use the provisions in the Sunshine Law to establish a claim for damages."
The court also denied a motion requesting a hearing on Wagoner's ability to be on council.
"With the exception of the Sunshine Law claim, the court will find there are some issues of material facts (and law) and the motion for summary judgment will be denied."
[[In-content Ad]]