Trending
YOUNGSTOWN -- A Mahoning County Common Pleas judge ruled the city's civil service commission acted appropriately when it upheld the mayor's March 2020 decision to fire Taron Cunningham as the Youngstown Community Development Agency director.
Cunningham, whose initial March 2019 firing was overturned by the court, said he plans to file an appeal with the 7th District Court of Appeals, seeking at least back pay and reinstatement for about a year. He also is considering an appeal of the latest decision that the March 2020 firing, which was retroactive a year, was appropriate.
City Law Director Jeff Limbian said: "The law department is appreciative that the court analyzed this case so thoroughly. The court so clearly articulated that the termination of Mr. Cunningham was properly based on legitimate and substantial factors. We understand that Mr. Cunningham has appeal rights for 30 more days. However, I hope that he will just move on with his life and recognize his termination was necessary and appropriate."
LENGTHY PROCESS
Cunningham initially was fired by Brown on March 8, 2019, an action upheld by the commission July 12 and 22, 2019.
Judge Anthony D'Apolito ruled Feb. 26, 2020, that the commission made the wrong decision because Brown's letter didn't "include the reasons for termination" as required.
Brown wrote a new letter March 12, 2020, to Cunningham firing him, retroactive to March 8, 2019, with details.
Cunningham, who was paid $74,997.52 annually, filed with the 7th District Court of Appeals seeking reinstatement and back pay between March 8, 2019, the date of the first termination letter, and March 12, 2020, the date of the second termination letter.
The court denied Cunningham's request three times.
The civil service commission then held a three-day hearing, starting Oct. 25, 2021, to hear Cunningham's arguments that the second Brown letter violated civil service rules. The commission upheld Cunningham's termination at a Dec. 15, 2021, meeting, saying he failed to prove his case and upheld the second firing.
Cunningham then appealed the second termination decision Jan. 13, 2022, in common pleas court.
Durkin ruled Tuesday that the commission's decision on Dec. 15, 2021, "was based upon reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law and is affirmed."
Durkin wrote that while the court "found that there was a procedural defect in the first removal order and remanded the matter to the city for a compliant removal letter, Cunningham sustained no damages because there is … evidence in the record to support Cunningham's termination."
Durkin wrote he "determined that the matter was not ripe to consider damages simply because there were procedural deficiencies."
THE LETTERS
After the court ruled the first letter from Brown to Cunningham firing him was incomplete, the mayor wrote a second one on March 12, 2020, to Cunningham firing him, retroactive to March 8, 2019. That included details from a Jan. 8, 2019, letter from T. Sharon Woodberry, the city's former economic development director, Cunningham's boss at the time, to Limbian.
Those letters outlined 26 issues with Cunningham including his "inability to adhere to policy and rules that govern the workplace, incompetence, poor communication skills, misrepresentation of facts in his course of work, general insubordination, temperamental and retaliatory behavior."
The civil service commission's Dec. 15, 2021, decision stated "a litany of personnel issues involving (Cunningham) and his ongoing working relationship with his supervisor, co-workers and outside partners" was revealed during the hearing. There were "disputes or incidents" with 13 former co-workers, including the mayor, according to its ruling.
RESPONSE
Cunningham said his case "demonstrates that civilian employees' due process must be respected by the Brown administration and the Youngstown Civil Service Commission for a full trial on the facts, evidence and rule of law."
He will "definitely" file an appeal on Durkin's ruling about the invalidity of Brown's first termination letter.
There are legal and substantive consequences which "would be required to review that decision … without giving any deference to Judge Durkin's judgment and upon a fresh review of the record in the context of applicable law," said S. David Worhatch, Cunningham's attorney.
Cunningham said the court received evidence that "shows Brown's administration mishandled and delayed issues of unprofessional conduct, failure to follow the personnel handbook policies and provided the court with substantive dates and documents relevant to mitigate and prove false the administrations allegations. However, the court did not recognize this key evidence."
For the court to rely on testimony at a civil service hearing from Brown, Limbian and Woodberry "is a low bar for a civilian employee to be terminated and will have further negative consequences for this classified group of employees," Cunningham said.
Cunningham said he also will consider appealing whether Durkin's decision is against the "manifest weight of evidence" in the administrative record.
dskolnick@vindy.com