Clarion County settles suit against OES for $25,000

A civil lawsuit filed by a former Clarion County 911 dispatcher against the county’s Office of Emergency Services has been dismissed following a settlement agreement between the parties.

The plaintiff will receive $13,327.20 and her attorneys will receive $11,672.80 a total of $25,000, with 53 percent to the plaintiff and 47 percent to her attorneys.

The settlements will be paid by the county’s insurer, the Pennsylvania Counties Risk Pool.

The county, according to invoice records, will pay a $5,000 deductible to PCoRP.

The settlement includes a provision stating the resolution of the case is not an admission of wrongdoing by either party.

The former dispatcher alleged she suffered sexual harassment and threats against her based on her gender.

It is the policy of the Clarion News to not identify the victims of sexual crimes. In this case, the plaintiff bringing the case against OES alleged sexual harassment among other charges. Following our policy, the Clarion News has opted to not identify the plaintiff at this time.

The Clarion County Office of Emergency Services was the lone defendant in the case. No individual defendants were sued.

According to court documents filed in federal court in Pittsburgh, the plaintiff and the county reached a settlement Aug. 15.

Attorneys for both parties filed a brief stating the two parties “stipulate (the lawsuit) is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.”

“Dismissed with prejudice” means none of the issues raised in the lawsuit can be filed against the defendant again.

On Aug. 31, Judge David Stewart Cercone signed an order granting the dismissal request.

The lawsuit was originally filed in late October of 2016.

Open records request used to review documents

The Clarion News learned of the settlement about two weeks ago.

Contacted by the Clarion News, county commissioners Wayne Brosius and Ted Tharan acknowledged “they are not at liberty to discuss (the settlement)” and referred settlement detail questions to attorneys Brian P. Gabriel and Julie A. Aquino of the Pittsburgh-based law firm Campbell, Durrant, Beatty, Palombo and Miller.

The newspaper sent an email inquiry to both attorneys, asking for the details of the settlement. Neither attorney responded.

It was later revealed the settlement agreement included the following statement: “Each party agrees to keep the terms of this agreement confidential to the extent legally permitted and agrees not to divulge or communicate this information in any way to any person or entity, except its attorneys, accountants, insurers, respective elected officials as may be required to fulfill any applicable fiduciary duties, persons necessary to process payment or as otherwise required by law, including the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law.”

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said lawsuit settlements involving a governmental body are subject to open records laws.

“If a government agency is involved in a settlement, the settlement is a public record, even if it contains a confidentiality clause,” Melewsky advised the newspaper. “Confidentiality clauses are not enforceable under (state) law when a government agency is a party to the settlement. The government cannot contract away the public’s right to know how its money is being spent or the legal obligations it is bound to perform.”

Melewsky sent a copy of a lawsuit between Tribune-Review Pub. Co. and the Westmoreland County Housing Authority that eventually went to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, which ruled lawsuit settlements involving government agencies are subject to open records laws.

The Clarion News then filed an open records request for information related to the settlement in question and included a copy of the state Supreme Court ruling.

The county responded in a very timely manner, forwarding the documents within three days.

Other details

The settlement includes several stipulations:

— The agreement closes any and all pending grievances and claims related to the plaintiff’s employment and separation of employment.

— The county agrees to provide a “neutral” reference for the plaintiff upon inquiry by prospective employers: “A neutral reference means providing dates of employment and last job held and no additional information.”

— The plaintiff agrees to make no disparaging or defamatory comments, written (including but not limited to electronic posts, tweets, updates, etc.) or oral, about the county.

— The county likewise agrees to make no disparaging or defamatory comments, written or oral, to any third party about the plaintiff.

— The plaintiff “waives, releases and forgoes” any future chance, right or opportunity to seek employment with the county.