Share This Page

Suit against library, its director settled

| Saturday, July 27, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A lawsuit filed earlier this year by a former employee against Uniontown Public Library and its director, alleging political discrimination and violation of the state whistle-blower act, has been settled out of court.

Pittsburgh attorney Edward A. Olds filed the suit against Lynne Santoliquido Singer Tharan in January on behalf of Vicki Leonelli of Uniontown. The suit also named the city of Uniontown.

Leonelli had sought a jury trial.

In the lawsuit, she said Tharan, library director since 2008, brought her “politics, her political views and prejudices to the library.”

After complaining to a city councilman about “endless political harassment” and to a library board member that Tharan “permitted vulgarities (and) allowed homeless people to camp out in the library,” she was fired, Leonelli said.

The suit stated she was dismissed for being “insubordinate.”

Her political affiliation and “whistle-blowing activity” led to her firing, Leonelli's suit alleged.

Olds did not return a request for comment on Friday.

Pittsburgh attorney Samuel Foreman represented the library, the city and Tharan in the suit.

A spokeswoman for his law firm, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires and Newby, confirmed the settlement but said the order had not yet been signed and declined comment.

Settlement details were not included in an online settlement document filed with U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

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.