Briefs filed in civil appeal against Greenfield, former leadership

A request for oral arguments, along with a request to uphold the decision of a local trial court, have been submitted to the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals in a case where Greenfield's former law director filed suit against the city, alleging wrongful termination. 

Conrad Curren had filed a civil suit in Highland County Common Pleas Court against the then-city of Greenfield in 2011, alleging that he was conspired against by former elected officials and city leaders. Curren had sought $14,000 in lost salary from the city and a total of $25,000 from the defendants: former city manager Charles Bowman and former city council members Harvey Everhart, Earlene Scott and John Wagoner.

  In November, visiting Judge Dale Crawford ruled in favor of the defendants, granting their motion for summary judgment. Crawford wrote in that decision that “there are no issues of material fact, and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Curren is represented by Hillsboro attorney Jon Hapner, and the defendants are represented by Mason attorney Lawrence Barbiere.

Curren submitted one assignment of error in the appeal, alleging that the trial court in Highland County erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. There were also seven issues presented for review of the court, including whether or not Curren was an at-will classified employee; if he could or could not be terminated at any time with or without cause; allegations the defendants acted "with malicious purpose, in bad faith or a wanton reckless manner;" allegations that the Ohio Sunshine Law was violated by council; and allegations that the trial court erred by striking portions of affidavits submitted as evidence to the court.

In a brief filed with the court of appeals by the defendants on March 1, 2012, they asked for the court of appeals to uphold the local court's decision and to schedule oral arguments on the matter. 

Last week, Curren filed a response to that brief, stating that summary judgment should not have been granted by the trial court because "there are genuine issues of fact to be developed. We further point out that on the day before the motion for summary judgment was filed, the Plaintiff (Curren) had filed for mediation and for an extension on time in the matter. This was totally ignored by the trial court."

It was also noted that a previous request for summary judgment by the defense had been denied.

"Conrad was the victim of a conspiracy, in that the named defendants acted in a uniform manner and apparently in violation of the Sunshine Law, hiding behind an executive session which was not stated for that purpose. A violation of the Sunshine Law would make the termination ordinance a nullity," Hapner wrote in the response brief. "Further, one member of council was not eligible to vote, and his actions are a nullity." 

In his initial complaint filed in January, Curren alleged that:

 • He was terminated as a result of conspiratorial, fraudulent and concerted action by defendants Wagoner, Everhart, Scott and Bowman.

 • The action to terminate was void because one defendant, John Wagoner, was not entitled to hold office.

 • The action to terminate him violated his constitutional rights in that he was not given the opportunity to respond.

 • The individual defendants conspired to file a complaint against him before the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court and such complaint contained a forged signature.

 • The defendants engaged in fraudulent, malicious activity which amounted to a fraudulent termination.

 • The alleged conspiracy violated Ohio’s Sunshine Law.

In their response, the defendants assert that "Curren's allegations of wrongful discharge are meritless given the unclassified at-will nature of his employment. Unclassified employees are appointed at the discretion of the appointing authority and serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. They may be dismissed at any time without cause, provided that dismissal is not made for the discriminatory or other unlawful reasons."

Curren responded that, "the ordinance appointing him for one year was never repealed nor dismissed. We concede that public offices are public trusts, and as such persons do not have a vested interest in the same. However, due to the fact that the city failed to repeal the ordinance appointing him, Conrad Curren would hold the law director's position for a period of one year, as a matter of law ... Even if (Curren) was an at-will employee, the idea that you hire someone in order to fire him, would be an indication of a lack of good faith, and therefore would raise the question of the actions of the council therein." 

Responding to the "bad faith" allegation, the defendants said, "In his deposition, Curren acknowledged the unprofessional behavior he exhibited during a council meeting on Sept. 30, 2008, which included publicly making derogatory remarks about various council members, publicly attacking council's ability to make decisions without his consent and encouraging a taxpayer lawsuit to be filed against the city of Greenfield. Curren's actions during the meeting demonstrated a blatant disregard for the fiduciary duties that he owed to the city of Greenfield as its law director. Harvey L. Everhart, Earlene Scott, John N. Wagoner and Charles V. Bowman did not act with malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner. Rather, those defendants specifically stated that the decision to terminate Curren was based upon their express dissatisfaction with Curren's performance as law director.

"Here, there is not a scintilla of evidence that any of these defendants acted with malice, bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner. In fact, the evidence specifically contradicts any such notion," according to the defense. 

Curren further alleged at a council member's filing of a complaint against him with the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, "while not actionable in itself, clearly shows evidence of the presence of malice, in that one signature was forged and a lack of good faith or bad faith." 

The defense stated that "statements made in a disciplinary complaint are clearly protected against any civil action and enjoy absolute privilege." The allegation that one of the signatures was forged, the defense wrote, is irrelevant because the alleged forgery is on a document unrelated to the termination issue.

Curren alleges that according to the deposition of a council member, the discussion regarding his termination took place in an executive session that had been held for the purpose of "personnel matter, AFCSME negotiations." 

The defense stated that Curren submitted no evidence regarding the alleged Sunshine violation, and that even if the Sunshine Law had been violated, that "does not automatically result in the invalidation of the public body's resolution."