Lint suit to proceed
?Whether the former director of the Fayette County Election Bureau was fired because of her political affiliation is a question a jury should answer, according to a ruling by a federal judge.
In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer declined to decide if Laurie Lint was fired for legitimate job performance issues or if she was fired in October 2009 because she switched her political party to Republican.
Lint was terminated by Democratic Commissioners Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, both of whom were named in the suit. Republican Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink did not support firing Lint and was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
According to Fischer’s ruling, Lint had a clean disciplinary record from her hiring in 1989 until early 2008. She had switched her party from Democrat to Republican in January 2007.
Among the issues cited for Lint’s firing were issues with a timesheet when she took leave, complaints by staff about her job performance, issues with grant reports, an incomplete voter purge and an issue with how a vacant Uniontown City Council seat was to be filled.
Part of the issue in the suit is whether Vicites and Zapotosky knew of Lint’s party change. While Fischer found there was no evidence that Lint expressly told them, the judge wrote that there was circumstantial evidence that the Democratic commissioners knew.
Fischer cited filings in the case in which Lint alleged the commissioners had access to lists that would have reflected her political party change. Filings in the matter also claimed that when Lint was listed as a Democrat, she got information from Vicites, but that stopped when she changed parties. She also claimed she perceived a change in how she was treated by Zapotosky and Vicites.
Fischer noted that Zimmerlink presented “what appear to be well-reasoned dissents” to the decision to fire Lint.
“According to Lint, Zimmerlink was also subject to disparate treatment. The fact that the only other Republican related to this case was allegedly treated differently from Democrats of equal position raises, in this court’s mind, a question of fact that the court should leave to the jury,” Fischer wrote.
The judge also noted that she found there were “inconsistencies” in the reasons given for firing Lint. Among those were Zapotosky initially agreeing that delaying the voter purge was prudent and then later citing the delay as a reason for firing Lint.
Fischer also noted a 2008 disciplinary notice that was never given to Lint and evidence that multiple department heads failed to file accurate and timely grant reports, but were never reprimanded.
“Defendants have produced evidence sufficient to justify their adverse employment action against Lint. Meanwhile, Lint has produced evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that she was terminated for discriminatory reasons,” Fischer wrote.