A U.S. Court Of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday, March 19 that a 2015 lawsuit against Salem Township and its supervisor can proceed.
The lawsuit was filed by a former candidate for township clerk who claimed she suffered retaliation after running for office.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Salem Township Supervisor Gary Whittaker is not protected by immunity laws that in some cases shield government officials from civil liability.
Carol Liogghio, a then-full-time administrative assistant to the township supervisor, mounted a losing campaign for township clerk in 2012.
Liogghio’s running mate was Whittaker’s political foe, former Township Supervisor Robert Heyl, whom Whittaker defeated in that election.
The lawsuit claims Whittaker, before taking office, asked Heyl to let Ligghio go, which Heyl refused to do. Whittaker is accused of telling township resident O’Neill Muirhead he wouldn’t fire Liogghio, but planned to “force her to quit.”
Whittaker in a sworn 2017 deposition said statements made by Heyl and Muirhead supporting the claims were untrue.
The lawsuit says Whittaker reduced Liogghio’s hours and shifted her duties once he took office.
In July of 2013, Liogghio took several months leave following a back surgery. Upon her return, Whittaker permanently hired a new administrative assistant, according to the lawsuit. Soon after, Liogghio quit working under a doctor’s recommendation and accused Whittaker in a letter of making her working conditions “intolerable” so that she would resign, the lawsuit says.
U.S. District Judge Denise P. Hood in July denied a motion filed by Whittaker requesting the judge dismiss him as a defendant, due to “qualified immunity," which states elected officials cannot be held civilly liable for actions they take in the normal course of their job.
Whittaker appealed the ruling to the 6th Circuit.
“Courts have long recognized that a public employer may not retaliate against an employee for her political activity,” the Court of Appeals panel found in its unanimous ruling. “Thus, under the district court’s determination of the facts, a reasonable officer in Whittaker’s position would have known that he was violating Liogghio’s constitutional rights. Hence we must affirm the denial of qualified immunity.”
The judges strongly denied a request made by Liogghio and her attorney, Jamil Akhtar, requesting sanctions against Whittaker’s legal team for frivolous court actions. The court called Liogghio’s motion “more frivolous than any argument Whittaker has made.”
If the ruling is not appealed to a higher court, it is likely to return to the U.S. District Court for litigation.
“We’re going to file a motion for an immediate trial,” Akhtar said.
Liogghio is “looking forward to getting the case resolved,” her attorney said.
MLive requested comment and was awaiting response from Whittaker and his attorney.