Greenfield files response denying officials conspired against Curren

The city of Greenfield and four other defendants named in a complaint filed by former city law director Conrad Curren have filed a response, denying they conspired against current to terminate his employment, and that they are immune from punitive damages. 

The city, along with former city manager Charles Bowman, current city council member Harvey Everhart, and former council members Earlene Scott and John Wagoner filed a response Thursday in the office of the Highland County Clerk of Courts. 

The defendants are represented by attorney Lawrence E. Barbiere of Mason. Curren is represented by Hillsboro attorney Jon Hapner. 

The defendants, according to the reponse, denies each of Curren's five allegations, along with several points stated within Curren's complaint. The defendants also responded with 16 points of defense.

Curren's complaint alleged that the defendants, "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."  

 He is seeking $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of $25,000 from Bowman, Everhart, Scott and Wagoner, collectively. 

Curren was the city's law director until October 2008, according to the complaint, when an ordinance council passed in August 2008 to terminate his employment became effective. 

According to the response filed Thursday, the defendants asset they, "acted reasonably, upon advise of counsel, in good faith based upon probable cause and without actual or implied malice," and that, "they are immune from the claims set for in plaintiff's complaint by virtue of sovereign immunity, absolute legislative immunity, qualified immunity, (according to the Ohio Revised Code)."

Additionally, the response states that as Curren was the law director, "any statements made by defendants are protected by a complete, absolute or qualified privilege thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery;" that, "any statements made by the defendants were true and/or were constitutionally protected opinion and/or were part of a public controversy within the context of which plaintiff was a public figure thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery;" that, "if such a contract were entered into with plaintiff, which is specifically denied, such contract was void for lack of consideration and because it was against public policy thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery in this action;" and that Curren, "was an employee at will and could be terminated at any time, with or without cause, and he had no property interest in his employment."

The defendants assert that Curren's claims are "barred by virtue of the Intra Corporate-Conspiracy Doctrine, and they ask that the complaint be dismissed, "at his cost, and that he take nothing thereby."