Fired official appeals denial of suit against Connellsville
By Mark Hofmann
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011,
Former Connellsville health and code enforcement officer Rita Bornstein has filed an appeal in Commonwealth Court to a Fayette County judge's denial of a lawsuit she filed claiming she had been fired for political reasons.
In January, Fayette County Judge Steve P. Leskinen ruled against Bornstein's lawsuit filed against the city of Connellsville.
Bornstein was fired Aug. 20, 2008, following a State Ethics Commission investigation completed in April 2008, which found Bornstein violated the Ethics Act by using city time and a city computer to perform health work for South Connellsville and Dunbar boroughs. She also failed to file financial interest statements for several years. Bornstein agreed to file financial interest statements and pay $2,928 to the state to settle the Ethics Commission violations. The commission matter was closed with no criminal prosecution.
Bornstein originally received her termination as code enforcement officer, health officer and zoning officer through a letter placed in her mailbox dated July 9, 2008, and signed by former city Councilman David McIntire, then director of health and public safety.
Between that letter and the Aug. 20 hearing, McIntire presented Bornstein with another letter that stated she was to continue her job as health officer pending the outcome of the hearing. The letter, dated Aug. 14, 2008, states that the hearing will "determine what disciplinary action, if any, the city council sitting as a civil service board, shall take against you in your capacity as health officer."
Council fired Bornstein as health officer following the unadvertised hearing, which included a private vote.
Bornstein's suit contends council sat as a civil service board, a violation of state law. The pertinent statute reads, "No city officer, official or employee shall be eligible for appointment to any civil service board," the lawsuit says.
In Leskinen's ruling, he stated Bornstein suffered "no harm or prejudice by being told, erroneously, that City Council would sit as a 'civil service board' at the discipline hearing," and that the former "city council's disciplinary action of Bornstein was solely based upon the investigation and findings of the State Ethics Commission, which was solely responsible for the initiation, investigation and final adjudication on the allegations of violations of the State Ethics Act."
He also stated that council did not intentionally violate the provisions of the Sunshine Act when it did not advertise the meeting at which Bornstein was terminated, because it dealt with the termination or disciplining action of a public officer or employee.
Also, because the court had no authority to reverse council's decision to terminate Bornstein's employment, the back pay and benefits mentioned in Bornstein's lawsuit in the amount of $37,059 cannot be awarded since it was denied to be paid by council.
Because McIntire could lawfully have suspended Bornstein for 30 days pending the hearing, Leskinen stated the court cannot find any basis to rescind the five-day suspension she was given.
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.