Two groups reach settlement with Pittsburgh over claims of harassment during G-20 summit
Pittsburgh agreed to pay two protester groups $143,000 to settle a lawsuit claiming that city employees violated their constitutional rights during the 2009 G-20 economic summit, Solicitor Dan Regan said Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster ordered the case closed, pending a joint motion from the city and Seeds of Peace Collective, a Montana-based group that feeds protesters during demonstrations, and Three Rivers Climate Convergence, a local climate change group.
Glen Downey, one of the lawyers representing the groups, said he couldn't talk about the settlement because it hadn't received final approval.
The groups claim that police and other city employees systematically harassed them in the days leading up to and during the summit in order to undercut their ability to protest. The city denies violating their rights.
Regan said the city denies wrongdoing or liability in the settlement but agreed with a recommendation by its insurer, Lexington Insurance Co., to end the lawsuit.
“This was a joint business decision between the (insurance) carrier and the city,” he said.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 â 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.