Judge rejects claims by former Pataskala employee

• A Licking County judge rejected claims made by a former Pataskala employee
• The ruling has been appealed
• Another case, filed by the same employee, is ongoing
• It was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

NEWARK – A Licking County judge rejected claims made by a former Pataskala employee in a lawsuit against the city, but the ruling has been appealed.

Jerry Rader, the city’s former road supervisor, sued the city in early 2014, claiming, among other things, that he was demoted and forced to take a salary reduction without just cause.

Rader named in the lawsuit, filed in Licking County Common Pleas Court, the city in addition to former City Administrator Tim Boland and former Public Service Director B.J. King. King now serves as the city’s administrator.

Licking County Common Pleas Judge Thomas Marcelain in May ruled in favor of the city and the other defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Marcelain sided with the defendants’ arguments. The defendants argued in court paperwork that Rader waived any claims he had against the city and abandoned an appeal when he voluntarily retired. The city also argued Rader offered no evidence to support being forced into retirement and failed, in his allegations, to make a coherent and viable claim for relief.

Despite Marcelain’s ruling, a notice of appeal was filed on June 8.

As of July 29, no briefs had been submitted and no court dates had been set.

Rader also filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division, and it is ongoing.

In June, the city and the other defendants filed a motion of summary judgment with the district court.

The defendants, in their memorandum of support, stated the case stems from Rader’s “asinine claim that he was involuntarily retired by The City of Pataskala by virtue of the City accepting his two-weeks’ notice, which he submitted voluntarily,” according to court records.

“Rader contends that he submitted his two-weeks’ notice after he was demoted because he hoped that the City would decline his resignation and would instead promote him back to his prior position. Rader’s decision was the classical example of playing with fire (a fire he started) and getting burned. Under these facts, Rader’s retirement can hardly be considered ‘involuntary.’ ”

Rader, in the district court case, is pursuing a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, alleging that the city’s actions reduced his retirement benefits and caused him to lose employee benefits.

He is asking for reinstatement to his former supervisory position in addition to back pay, compensatory damages and court costs, among other things.

The city originally demoted Rader on Sept. 14, 2012, and Rader ultimately retired in December 2012.

Rader’s attorney, Wesley Fortune, argued in the lawsuit before Marcelain that the defendants reduced his pay without complying with due process and without just cause. Fortune also alleged that they failed to provide the city’s Personnel Board of Review with notice of the demotion, effectively not allowing his client to appeal it.

The Standard in 2014 submitted a public records request to review Rader’s personnel file. The file included a letter informing Rader of his demotion. The letter laid out a number of reasons for the action.

According to the letter, Rader scored below average proficiency in seven of 11 performance characteristics on an August 2011 evaluation. He also scored below average proficiency in nine of 11 performance characteristics in a June 2012 evaluation, according to the letter. Included in the list of nine characteristics was “team oriented” and “customer service orientation.”

The letter also accused Rader of failing to maintain an open, communicative environment in his department.

Fortune, in the lawsuit before Marcelain, asked the court to reinstate Rader to his previous title as street supervisor, retroactive to September 2012. He also asked the city to cover his client’s attorney’s fees, cost and expenses, in addition to an award of additional relief.