Trending
YOUNGSTOWN -- Taron Cunningham, the fired Youngstown Community Development Agency director, is appealing a judge's decision that the city's civil service commission acted properly when it upheld his March 2020 termination by the mayor.
An appeal filed Thursday by S. David Worhatch, Cunningham's attorney, with the 7th District Court of Appeals seeks, at minimum, back pay for a little over a year for his client. Worhatch's main objective is to restore Cunningham to his former position with more than four years of back pay.
"What they've done to this man, they shouldn't be permitted to do to a civil servant," Worhatch said.
In response to the appeal, city Law Director Jeff Limbian said: "After years of litigation in this matter, we had hoped that clearer heads would prevail and that Mr. Cunningham would recognize that this matter is over. Of course we will continue to fight all appeals as they are filed."
Cunningham initially was fired March 8, 2019, but that was overturned almost a year later by Judge Anthony D'Apolito of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, who ruled Feb. 26, 2020, that the commission made the wrong decision because Mayor Jamael Tito Brown's letter didn't include the reasons for termination as required.
Brown then wrote a new letter March 12, 2020, to Cunningham firing him, retroactive to March 8, 2019, with details that were identical to a letter written Jan. 8, 2019, by T. Sharon Woodberry, Cunningham's boss at the time, about him 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."
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 appeals court denied Cunningham's request three times. In its third judgment, the court "found that the matter is not yet ripe to consider damages due to the procedural deficiencies and the need for a hearing at the administrative level to address whether there are legitimate grounds for termination."
The civil service commission 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.
The commission's decision stated that "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 coworkers, including the mayor, according to its ruling.
Cunningham then appealed the second termination decision Jan. 13, 2022, in common pleas court.
Judge John M. Durkin, who was assigned the case, ruled April 18 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 he "determined that the matter was not ripe to consider damages simply because there were procedural deficiencies."
But Worhatch disagrees -- saying it is a "substantive issue and not procedural."
He also said now that the city commission held a hearing, the appeals court can no longer "ignore" its consideration of damages to Cunningham.
In the appeal, Worhatch said issues to be considered include:
∫ Whether Durkin should have reversed the commission's decision to affirm Brown's second letter "in violation of the city's civil service rules" or disaffirm it;
∫ Whether Durkin should have at least given Cunningham back pay for the one year and four days between the mayor's two letters;
∫ Whether Durkin "abused (his) discretion" when he didn't consolidate the case in front of him with the one that D'Apolito handled;
∫ Whether Durkin "erred in overruling (Cunningham's) motion for partial summary judgment," and
∫ Whether Durkin should have awarded damages to Cunningham or at least remanded the appeal back to the city commission to determine damages.
Worhatch also asked the appeals court to overturn several of the same issues in the case handled by D'Apolito.
dskolnick@vindy.com