A judge has thrown out a former Winfield Planning Commission member's lawsuit against the city and its mayor, who the commissioner said wrongfully removed him from the board and slandered him at a public meeting.
Putnam Circuit Judge Joseph Reeder signed an order Thursday denying a request from George Armstrong's attorney that Reeder ask the state Supreme Court to clarify whether Mayor Randy Barrett and the city were immune from the lawsuit. Reeder stated the law already was clear in giving Barrett and Winfield "absolute immunity for any alleged harm resulting from the removal of Planning Commission members," and granted the defendants' request that he dismiss the case.
"As a member of the Planning Commission, Plaintiff was unpaid and was not a formal employee of Winfield," the judge ruled. "Rather, as a member of a quasi-legislative body, he could be freely removed from his position at any time and for any reason. As Mayor of Winfield, Mr. Barrett was engaged in a traditional executive function, namely the hiring and removal of executive and quasi-legislative officials, when he notified the Plaintiff that he was terminated from the Planning Commission due to a 'conflict.'"
Due to this immunity, Reeder stated that he didn't need to consider "whether the actions of the Mayor were malicious or violated any clearly established right."
When contacted Monday, Armstrong said he didn't know the case had been dismissed and plans to seek advice on whether to appeal.
Armstrong previously lodged a complaint with the city requesting compensation for alleged encroachment on his property related to drainage from sidewalk projects. His now-dismissed lawsuit, filed in September 2014 by Winfield-based attorney David O. Moye, stated he met with Barrett on the issue Aug. 6, 2013.
Moye wrote that Barrett became angry about Armstrong's request for payment. According to documents the Charleston Gazette received through an open records request, the mayor sent him a letter later that August stating that his appointment to the commission expired Dec. 31, 2013, and "due to conflict of interest, this appointment will not be renewed."
City Attorney Tim LaFon said the potential for Armstrong to launch a separate lawsuit against the city and the sidewalk engineers created a conflict of interest, but Armstrong argued his encroachment issue could've been reasonably accommodated so that he could continue serving on the commission.
When Armstrong attended the next commission meeting on Sept. 9, 2013 - after receiving the letter - Barrett allegedly admonished him in front of the board and audience, said he no longer had his seat and "stood in front of the commission and crowd and asked if Plaintiff had received his letter of termination." When Armstrong noted that the letter stated he wouldn't be removed until the end of 2013, the mayor allegedly said that was a typo and it was supposed to say he was removed in 2012.
In their response to the lawsuit, the city and Barrett denied the mayor made those statements at the commission meeting. Barrett said there was an interaction between he and Armstrong before the meeting began. Armstrong also said the mayor made his alleged statements before the meeting began.
Moye argued Barrett removed Armstrong without just cause or due process. Armstrong had requested reinstatement on the commission, a public apology, attorney costs and damages - including for humiliation, embarrassment and loss of personal dignity.
Armstrong's separate lawsuit against the city over its sidewalk installation - filed under the name of his rental property holding company, CV Management, the same month he sued Winfield and Barrett in the now-dismissed case - is still ongoing. Winfield has asked the court to dismiss that lawsuit as well, and has brought the Pennsylvania-based contractor that installed the sidewalks, Michael Baker Jr. Inc., into the case, saying it was the contractor's job to ensure "said sidewalks were being installed within appropriately obtained rights-of-way."
The city argues that if CV Management's allegations are accurate, Michael Baker Jr. Inc. breached its contract with the city and is liable for any damages. CV Management, which controls the property for the Winfield Mobile Home Village and Country Roads Veterinary Hospital, wants payment for the fair market value of the property at the time the city allegedly took it, the amount of money the company had to spend to move a sign, legal fees and other damages.
Reach Ryan Quinn at ryan.quinn@wvgazette.com, 304-348-1254 or follow @RyanEQuinn on Twitter.