Woods Run prison firings political, lawsuit alleges
By Brian Bowling
Published: Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011
Three former Woods Run prison officials claim in a federal lawsuit that the governor engineered their firings as a favor to the prison guards union, not because of an investigation into guards' sexual abuse of inmates.
Michael Farnan, the attorney representing Melvin Lockett, former superintendent at SCI-Pittsburgh; Janis Niemiec, former deputy superintendent of centralized services; and Martin A. Kovacs, former deputy superintendent for facilities management, said they had saved the state millions of dollars in overtime-related payments.
Their actions angered officials in the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association, one of only two unions to endorse Gov. Tom Corbett in the 2010 election, and that the Corbett administration returned the favor by firing the officials who were keeping their members from raking in extra pay.
"My clients weren't lazy about (their duties)," Farnan said. "They went out and did the right thing, and they were punished for it."
David LaTorre, spokesman for the union, declined comment other than to issue a statement.
"The PSCOA hasn't had the opportunity to review the suit but at first glance it certainly seems to be laughable," he said.
Corbett's office denied the accusations.
"This is a frivolous lawsuit with absolutely no merit. We are confident that the commonwealth's actions will be shown to be appropriate and lawful, and the case will be thrown out of court,'' said Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections declined comment.
The three former officials also claim that the sexual assault investigation began with Niemiec notifying a security captain that an unusually high number of new inmates were asking for the protection of solitary confinement, the lawsuit says.
They spent hours gathering information for investigators and Lockett readily agreed to suspend the eight guards that state investigators identified as participating in or abetting the assaults, the lawsuit says.
"They did everything they could," said Farnan.
The investigation that has led to nearly 100 charges against guard Harry F. Nicoletti, 59, of Coraopolis, including assault, indecent assault, solicitation and terroristic threats related to attacks on more than 20 inmates over the past two years. Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said charges against other guards for either sexually assaulting and torturing inmates or failing to intervene in such incidents are likely.
Nicoletti, free on bond, has called them "false allegations."
Zappala said in September that Lockett, Niemiec, Kovacs and former Major of the Guard John Wiser -- who left his position at the same time as the others -- aren't suspects in the investigation.
The pay dispute mentioned in the lawsuit deals with "equalization" pay, which is given to guards who want to work overtime but aren't offered the extra hours. The payments are part of the collective bargaining agreement between the Department of Corrections and the union.
The state has paid prison guards $3 million to $4 million in equalization pay over the past four years, the lawsuit says.
"Rather than be held hostage by the union, the management at SCI-Pittsburgh, including the plaintiffs, devised a plan to follow the collective bargaining agreement closely," the lawsuit says. As a result, the guards at Woods Run didn't receive any equalization pay.
"It is believed and therefore averred that PSCOA was infuriated by the decision of the arbitrator because the efforts of the plaintiffs led to the end of PSCOA membership receiving 'free money' from corrections," the lawsuit says.
Union officials became even angrier when Lockett and the others discovered overpayments that required some guards to reimburse the state a total of $200,000 in equalization pay, the lawsuit says.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.