ShareThis Page
Fired health officer files suit against city |

Fired health officer files suit against city

| Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:00 a.m

Fired city health and code enforcement officer Rita Bornstein is suing the City of Connellsville in an attempt to get her job back.

In papers filed last week, Bornstein’s attorney Benjamin Goodwin of Uniontown wrote, “It is believed and therefore averred that (Bornstein) was removed for political reasons.”

Bornstein’s health officer position was as a civil service employee, so the lawsuit is in two parts: a petition for appeal of discharge of a civil service employee and wrongful discharge from code enforcement without formal action by city council.

The suit contends council violated the Sunshine Act and the firing violated Bornstein’s right to procedural due process. Bornstein seeks reinstatement, back pay and all legal expenses.

The firing followed a State Ethics Commission investigation, completed in April, which found that Bornstein violated the Ethics Act by using city time and a city computer to perform health work for South Connellsville and Dunbar Borough. 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 SEC matter is closed.

Bornstein originally received her termination as code enforcement officer, health officer and zoning officer by a letter placed in her mailbox dated July 9 and signed by Councilman David McIntire, director of health and public safety.

The lawsuit states, “The letter followed a private meeting between Mayor Judy Reed and Councilman David McIntire, director of public health and safety.” It continues, “The aforesaid meeting was conducted without notice to or the attendance of the other members of city council. Councilman David McIntire has indicated that he proffered the charges against (Bornstein) at the direction of Connellsville Mayor Judy D. Reed.”

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, 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 that featured a private vote.

City solicitor Tom Bowlen recused himself because he has worked for Bornstein in personal matters.

Attorney John Toohey conducted the hearing. He said council “is empowered by statute to be conducting a hearing, with any discipline up to and including discharge.”

Bornstein’s suit contends that 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,” says the lawsuit.

“The code officer firing was done by letter, and never by a vote of council. I want my job back with no stipulations,” Bornstein said Wednesday. “I don’t think I did anything wrong.”

Reed said she could not comment. “I have not actually seen the suit. I’d better not comment.”

Reed would not say who will represent the city in the lawsuit. “Solicitor Bowlen has recused himself. We know that. I can’t comment on who will represent the city.”

The city has 20 days to respond in writing to the lawsuit.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.