Vandergrift councilwoman continuing with lawsuit against borough, 5 colleagues

The legal battle among members of Vandergrift Council continues.

Recent case filings show a back-and-forth between Councilwoman Karen McClarnon and her peers, and a refusal to drop a civil lawsuit filed in late May. The defendants, five other council members and other officials, filed to dismiss the suit in late July on a variety of grounds. McClarnon’s response to their motion, via attorney William Lafferty, was filed Thursday.

Messages left for attorneys on both sides of the dispute were not immediately returned.

A culmination of several months of tension among borough officials, the suit contains accusations of defamation, violation of free speech and violation of due process. McClarnon alleges actions of other council members and borough employees have violated her constitutional rights and hampered her ability to function as an elected official.

In addition to the borough, defendants listed in the suit include Vandergrift Council President Kathy Chvala; council members Christine Wilson, John Uskuraitis, Tom Holmes and Lenny Collini; police Chief Joseph Caporali; and Patrolman Nathan Rigatti. Mayor Barbara Turiak, originally a defendant, was removed from the suit in Thursday’s filing.

In their motion to dismiss the case, the defendants argued McClarnon’s claims against Turiak and Rigatti were unsubstantiated. McClarnon had alleged that Rigatti engaged in slander against her and that the police department tried to intimidate her since her election to council.

But the defendants argued McClarnon did not describe any specific instance of defamatory statements or identify who they were made to.

In the response filed Thursday, McClarnon conceded to drop Turiak from the suit , but maintained her claims against Rigatti. She clarified that Rigatti was the officer who allegedly pulled over her husband allegedly without cause in front of the family residence, a claim mentioned in the original complaint.

In the original complaint, McClarnon also said she was deprived of her ability to function as an elected official because council members wouldn’t return her calls, blocked her phone number and left her out of key decision making.

She argued all this equated to discrimination under the 14th Amendment because she was not granted liberty or equal protection of laws in performing her duties. McClarnon said she has been chastised for decisions within her own committees and retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. She also alleged members held meetings in secret, in violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law.

The rest of council took issue with McClarnon’s legal rationale. They argue there are no facts to show a violation of McClarnon’s rights and say the alleged conduct was not “sufficiently extreme” to prevent her from doing her job.

In the motion to dismiss, they argued her inability to fulfill her role was not a violation of the Constitution, as the 14th Amendment applies to the right to “life, liberty and property” — not the right to hold office. They also said McClarnon’s discrimination claim is unfounded because it is “rational” for political opponents to be treated differently from political allies.

McClarnon’s attorney doubled down on her claims of 14th Amendment rights violations, though, arguing she has the right to fulfill the duties of her office once elected, and also alleges that she has lost a business client as a result of “the combined attacks” of council.

“(McClarnon) may not have a liberty right to hold the job, but once she is in the job, she has the liberty right to perform her duties,” the response reads.

McClarnon’s response also draws distinction between “the right to differ and the right not to be bullied by officials,” arguing comments and actions made toward her were beyond the normal scope of political opposition.

The response further charges McClarnon’s peers on council with neglecting their own duties as elected officials, saying their refusal to speak with McClarnon has “frustrated the purpose of the government of which they are a part.”

The defendants argued they should receive “qualified immunity” from the lawsuit — a legal doctrine granting government officials immunity from civil suits while performing certain functions. But, the latest filing argues, the doctrine is unclear when it comes to those in elected positions, who are not employees subject to the hierarchy of command. The filing argues that, as leaders, they must be able to work with competing ideas and, by extension, the scrutiny of a civil suit.

“It is not a trivial matter when an elected official attempts to bully another elected official into silence,” the filing reads.

Vandergrift Council’s next meeting is at 7 p.m. Tuesday.