PITTSBURGH – Five ex-volunteer firefighters in the City of Latrobe who claimed they were ousted from their positions after voicing opposition to the alleged behavior of the department chief, have now settled those claims with the City.
Christopher Blessing, Cody Giovannagelo, Fabian Giovannagelo, Nico Giovannagelo and Ryan Jones of McKeesport filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 14, 2020 versus the City of Latrobe, Mayor Rosemarie M. Wolford, the Latrobe Volunteer Fire Department, Fire Chief John Brasile and Fire Department President Chuck McDowell Jr. All parties of Latrobe.
(An amended version of the complaint was filed on Jan. 25, 2021, and Wolford was later dismissed as a defendant on March 29, 2022.)
At Latrobe Goodwill Hose Company No. 1 in 2019 and 2020, the lawsuit alleged Brasile was tardy in showing up to the scenes of fire emergency situations, falsely claimed to have been on scene at situations where he wasn’t actually present, attempted to remotely supervise fire scenes while on vacation, made a series of sexist and racist comments regarding firefighters or their spouses, and removed his opponent from the ballot in last year’s election for chief.
Per the suit, Brasile allegedly labeled a female firefighter as a “sl–t”, two other firefighters as the department’s “Mexicans” and the wife of another firefighter as a “fat f–ing c–t.” Plaintiff Fabian Giovannagelo confronted Brasile about his language and several safety concerns, the suit said.
In November 2019, plaintiff Nico Giovannagelo – Fabian’s son – was nominated as an electoral candidate to be the department’s fire chief.
On Dec. 2, 2019, just days before the election, Brasile suspended Nico and six other firefighters, allegedly without cause. Due to being suspended, Nico was removed from the ballot and Brasile won the election unopposed.
Though Brasile claimed the suspended firefighters responded to fire emergencies under the influence of drugs or alcohol and/or claimed to have responded to fire scenes where they were not present, the plaintiffs denied these charges and countered that Brasile’s only rationale for suspending them is because they opposed him.
Last January, members Hose Company No. 1 voted to investigate Brasile’s action and suspend him from the position as fire chief. However, Wolford overturned the decision, allegedly saying, “If you want a new chief, you need a new vote.”
On March 5, 2020, Hose Company No. 1 members voted to oust Brasile and appoint Nico Giovannagelo as the new chief by a vote of 32-17, though Brasile said it was only because his supporters did not participate in the election that he was not victorious. Brasile was ousted by the members the following day.
However, the City of Latrobe later decided that the election was invalid and transferred Brasile to Hose Company No. 2. On May 27, 2020, Brasile then expelled the five plaintiffs without apparent explanation.
“Defendant Brasile’s expulsion of plaintiffs was not preceded by any notice, progressive discipline or due process of any kind and contained false, fabricated, nonsensical, pre-textual reasons for each expulsion. In violation of the Latrobe City Code, defendant Fire Department Bylaws and Hose Company No. 1 by-laws, defendant Brasile’s expulsion letters falsely represented that plaintiffs’ appeal had to be made directly to him,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiffs were never properly or legally notified of a date, time and location of any appeal hearing or that plaintiffs’ appeal would be heard by a Board of Appeals, as mandated by the applicable by-laws.”
They were later told that their expulsions were upheld at the appeal hearing, despite receiving no advance notice of that hearing.
The plaintiffs said that Brasile, McDowell and the City of Latrobe collectively conspired to wrongfully expel them for exercising their 1st Amendment right to criticize Brasile.
After the filing of the amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2021, the City and Wolford filed their second motion to dismiss the case on Feb. 8, 2021.
“Plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment due process claims against defendants City and the mayor should be dismissed for failure to allege any basis for their liability. Mayor Wolford was not a final decision maker with regards to the termination of the plaintiffs, and no other basis for liability on her part is alleged in plaintiffs’ due process claims,” the dismissal motion said, in part.
“Under the City of Latrobe’s Code, the Mayor of the City has no role in overseeing, supervising, managing or otherwise being involved with the Fire Department.”
The defendants argued that no custom, practice or policy is alleged to have been in place to violate plaintiffs’ rights, and no other basis for liability on Latrobe’s part is alleged such that the Monell counts are subject to dismissal. Furthermore, the defendants say counts against Wolford should be dismissal due to qualified immunity and punitive damages counts should likewise be thrown out.
In response, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion on Feb. 22, 2021.
“A reading of plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiffs, confirms that plaintiffs’ have properly pled claims of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations conspiracy, municipal/Monell liability and supervisory liability claims and that defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied by this Honorable Court,” the response motion stated.
“Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech as citizens on matters of public concern and their rights to substantive and procedural due process were clearly established rights which were known to defendant Wolford. As Mayor of defendant City, defendant Wolford would not have believed that it is permissible to retaliate against plaintiffs due to their exercising their First Amendment rights, nor would defendant Wolford have believed that it is permissible to deny plaintiffs their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Defendant Wolford therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity.”
UPDATE
After two additional years of litigation and a mediation session which proved successful, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge W. Scott Hardy explained the case had been settled and ordered it closed for administrative purposes on Feb. 21. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.
“The Court having been advised by counsel that the above-captioned case has been resolved and that the only matter remaining is the submission of a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and it appearing that there is no further action required by the Court at this time,” Hardy said.
“It is hereby ordered that the Clerk mark the above-captioned case closed; that nothing contained in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this action, and that should further proceedings therein become necessary or desirable, either party may initiate them in the same manner as if this order had not been entered, and it is further ordered that the Court expressly retains jurisdiction in this matter to consider any issue arising during the period prior to dismissal, including, but not limited to, enforcing settlement.”
The plaintiffs were represented by Dennis G. Charles and Frederick E. Charles of The Charles Law Office, in Allentown.
The defendants were represented by Scott G. Dunlop, Morgan M.J. Randle and Nathan Marinkovich of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin and Bruce E. Rende of Robb Leonard Mulvihill, all in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01212
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com