Zimmerlink files brief in ongoing civil litigation
In a reply brief filed in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink put a finer point on the claims made in her appeal, addressing the arguments made by the defendants, commissioner Vincent Zapotosky and former commissioner Vincent A. Vicites, that her lawsuit should be dismissed.
Zimmerlink’s suit, filed in 2010, contended her constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection were violated when then-majority commissioners Vicites and Zapotosky held secret meetings and decided on county business without her input, allegedly in retaliation for her opposing political views. Zimmerlink is a Republican, Zapotosky and Vicites are Democrats.
A lower federal court judge dismissed the suit, prompting Zimmerlink to appeal the decision.
In last week’s brief, Zimmerlink’s attorney, Jordan Lee Strassburger, wrote, “Zimmerlink was elected by the voters of Fayette County to govern. The essence of governing is meeting, discussing and voting in an educated way.”
“In essentially reducing Zimmerlink’s allegation to no big deal, defendants ignore the reality of what transpired between the parties for the first two years of the 2008 term,” he wrote.
What transpired, and what Zimmerlink wants a jury to consider, the brief states, is that Zapotosky and Vicites held “illegally conducted meetings” that they knew Zimmerlink would not attend.
“Zimmerlink is duty-bound as county commissioner to be informed and well-apprised of all official county business. According to the defendants, Zimmerlink needed only to be informed of vital information at a public meeting — no sooner than the rest of the general public. Twelve ordinary persons might take reasonable exception to that position,” Strassburger wrote.
Regarding specifically the negotiations Zimmerlink alleges the other commissioners conducted behind her back with Delta Development Corporation, a consulting firm, Strassburger wrote that evidence produced by the defendants proves they “not only negotiated and executed the county’s contract with Delta throughout the entire month of September 2009, but also that defendants engaged in an active conspiracy to cover it up.”
“A jury could easily conclude that defendants’ refusal to inform Zimmerlink of this vital county information was caused by her vocal opposition to Delta,” he wrote. “A reasonable jury could further conclude that defendants’ refusal to provide Zimmerlink with information related to a $150,000 county contract was far from inconsequential.”
Strassburger also reiterated that whether the defendants conducted private negotiations in the matter of the county’s contract with Felice Associates is an issue for a jury to decide.
Similarly, he argued that a jury should be allowed to consider whether the defendants hired an information technology employee for the county without Zimmerlink’s input and whether the defendants forced her to seek her own legal counsel in the matter of a lawsuit lodged against her and the county by a Dunbar Township family.
Zimmerlink’s brief also addresses the contention the defendants made in their brief last month that “to permit a jury to impose liability upon the defendant commissioners from having communicated with each other, with third parties, and with the press would also infringe on the defendants’ own First Amendment rights.”
That argument, Strassburger wrote, is “a red herring.”