Upload
vophuc
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PETER MOSES,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY
LUZERNE COUNTY COMMUNITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLLEGE,
NO. 4644 OF 2009 Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
NANCIE REDMOND, hereby certifies that on August 3,2009, she served a true
and correct copy of the COMPLAINT on defendant by hand delivering a copy thereof to
counsel for defendant, Joseph E. Kluger, Esquire, Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn, 600 Third
Avenue, Kingston, PA 18704.
PETER MOSES,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY
LUZERNE COUNTY COMMUNITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLLEGE,
NO. 4644 OF 2009 Defendant
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Peter Moses ("Mr. Moses"), by and through his counsel, Sheiley E.
Centini, Esq. and Barry H. Dylier, Esq. of the Dyller Law Firm, hereby alleges for his
Complaint as follows:
Mr. Moses was Associate Dean of Administration and Auxiliary Services at:
Luserrse County Community College ("LCCC"). In that position, Mr. Moses attempted to
eliminate v~rsngdoing and government waste involving government contracts for various
services at LCCC. As reward for his selfless efforts and his courage, Mr. Moses
suffered retaliation at the hands of corrupt yet powerful officials at LCCC, inci~dirrg
former LCCC Beat-d of Trustees Chairperson Ross Scarantino ("Scarantins").
Scarantino, who was also Pittston Area Superintendent during the same time frame:
recently pled guilty to a federal felony charge of Theft or Bribery Concernirrg P~ograrns
Receiving Federal Funds for corruptly accepting kickbacks in exchange for contracts /
awarded within Pittston Area School District.
When Mr. Moses tried to reveal the wrongdoing anci government waste
regarding LCCC's contracts, invoices and purchase orders to Scarantino and others,
they and LCCC retaliated against Mr. Moses in the most severe way. They terminated
Mr. Moses's employment, criminally investigated and charged him with crimes to which
he vehemently asserts his innocence, and tarnished his reputation.
This action is brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.G.S, 5
1421, et seq., to vindicate the injustice LCCC perpetrated on Mr. Moses, the Ione voice
for the taxpayers against the corrupt and criminal controlling authorities at LCCC, who
were motivated only by greed and personal gain, and thought nothing cf destroying h1rS
Moses in order to preserve their corrupt fiefdom.
THE PARTIES
1. ,Plaintiff Peter Moses is an adult individual, residing in Luzerrre County,
Peansyivania. From approximately November, 1991 to September 23, 2008 Mr. Moses
war; an "employee" of defendant LCCC under 43 Pa.C.S. 5 1422.
2. The defendant LCCC is a political subdivision of the Commonvveafth of
Pennsylvania and Luzerne County and is an education institution in the form of
Community College established pursuant to 24 Pa.C.S. 51 9-1 901 -A, et seq,, sponsored
by Luzerne County and located at 1333 So~lth Prospect Street, NantScoke? kuzerne
County, Pennsylvania. LCCC is a "public body" and Mr. Moses' "employer" from
approximatefy November, 1991 to September 23, 2008 under 43 Pa.C.S. 5i 2 422.
2
BACKGROUND
3. Beginning in 2003, Mr. Moses held the job of Associate Bean of
Administration and Auxiliary Services. Pat-t of this job was l o revisw irsvcices and
contracts between service providers and LCCC.
4. Mr. Moses's direct supervisor was Richard Arnico ("Amico"), who was the
Dean of Administration and Human Resources.
5. Both Mr. Moses and Amico were supervised by the Coiiege President,
Thomas hcary ("'teary").
6. From 2003 until 2009, Ross Scarantino ("Scarantino") was the
Chairperson of the LCCC Board of Trustees.
7. Scarantino was also a member of the Pittstcn Area School Board.
8, ltrl 2009, Scarantino pled guilty to a federal felony charge of Theft or
Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds for corruptly accepting
kickbscks in exchange for contracts awarded within Pittston Area School Dislrict.
9. in 2008, the LCCC Board of Trustees also consisted sf \Pice Chairperson
Paul Halesey ("Halesey"), Secretary Gregory A. Skrepenak ("Skrepenak"), Charles S.
Adonizls ("Adonisio"), August J. Piazza ("PiazzaJ'), Michael Tigue ("Tigue"), Judith k
Ellis ("Ellis"), Mahmoud H. Fahrny ("Fahmy"), Paula Csnahan-DeJoseph ("Conahan-
DeJosephi'), Joseph M. Lombardo ("Lsmbardo"), Robert Panawicz ("Panowicz"),
Thomas P. Pizano ("Pizano"), Joseph Rymar ("Rymar"), Elaine C u r r ~ ("Curry-") zrrd
Thornss CJDor;nell ("cS'DonneilJ').
19. All financial transactions at LCCC, including payment of invoices
submitted for contracted work, are supervised by the Business and/or Finance
Department.
7 I . Joseph Gasper ("Gasper"), Associate Dean of Finance, was Mr. Moses's
superior. Gasper's job duties included payment of invoices submitted for csniracted
work.
'1 2. Robert Linskey ("Linskey"), Director of Accounts and Finance; was Mr.
Moses's superior. Linskey's job duties included payment of invoices sr~bmitted fur
contracted work. Linskey also served as a member of the Pittston Area School Board
wjth Scaral~tino.
13. Mary Lou Yerke ("Yerke"), Controller, was Mr. Moses's superior.
Yerke's job duties included payment of invoices submitted fcr contracted work.
I-IVAC
14. From approximately 2005 to 2006, LCCC required i~stallation of air
conditioning and heating units ("HVAC"). A company called Architecture & Engineering
Gritlup desired to put the contract out for bid. At the insistence of Scarantino,
Architecture 8 Engineering Group wrote specifications for the units alone, without tRs
inslallation, even though Architecture & Engineering Group explz;lned that C iimada n$>
sense is make such a bid without also including installation. However, the work was
never bid, as is required by applicable law and policy.
15. The contract for installation of the HVAC units was awarded without
being bid to Power Technologies, a company owned by Harry Petrillo ("Petriilo").
16. in 2006, Mr. Moses became aware through his review of invoices
that Power Technologies was overbilling LCCC for parts and labor. In addition, Mr.
Moses ~ot iced that some Power Technologies invoices were obviously aftcred in ~ r d e r
to increase the c@sts of parts.
17. Mr. Moses in good faith reported to Scarantino, Arnico, Yerke and Leary
th1s \waste and wrongdoing.
18. Mr. Moses was instructed to authorize payment of the bills in full.
19. Mr. Moses continued to complain about the altered invoices and
overbilling by Power Technologies. Eventually, Mr. Moses authorized only partial
payments to Pcwer Technologies and established new policies and procedures
regarding the payment of invoices by LCCC.
20. Scarantino instructed Amico to order Mr. Moses to pay the P o w ~ r
Technology b i b in full, despite knowing that the bills were inflated. Mr. Moses still
rel'us~d.
21. In 2006, Mr. Moses was called to meet Sczrantirac and Petrille, the
owner of Power Technologies, at a restaurant. Scarantino told Mr. Moses that he was
no: a ''team player," and Mr. Moses could not be on "the team" if he did riot pay
Petrillo's Fcwer Technologies bills "in full." Mr. Moses was also ordered te: stop
questioning :he accuracy of the bills.
32. On numerous occasions in the evening hours, Mr. Moses was summo;~ed
to the ch3nference roam at the Pittston Area School District where h e was ordered by
Scarantino and Amico to stop questioning and simply pay the Power Technofcigies bitEs.
Security Cameras
23. In 2006, LCCC required installation of security cameras. T\n;o companies,
ACIT and Hillman, wrote specifications for the work. Again, the work was never bid, as
is required by app!icable law and policy.
24. Instead, the contract was awarded without being bid to a company called
Intsllacorn, Inc. ("Pntellacorn").
25. Mr. Moses in good faith reported to Scarantinc about the wrongdoing anb
waste regarding the award to Intellacorn. Scarantino falsely informed Mr. Moses that
the security camera contract will be issued under "state contract" so it did not need to
bs bid.
26. The price that Intellacorn quoted for the job greatly exceeded the amount
anticipated in the ADT and Hillman specifications.
27. Arnico, Piazza, Scarantino and Conahan-DeJoseph all atternpte6 tc
convince Mr Moses that the Intellacorn contract did not need to bs bid and th24 Mr..
Moses shuu!C! simply pay the invoices, even though they greatly exceeded the price
range for the job.
28. At one point, Mr. Moses told Leary that LCCC was wasting money by
paying the inflated amount to Intellacorn. Leary told Mr. Moses that Leary would prefer
to rely on the expertise of Piazza, Scarantino and Conahan-DeJoseph. Leary chastised
Mr. Moses for questioning board members.
29. Scarantino told Mr. I\/loses he would lose his job if he did not approve the
3r3. Mr. Moses began to receive invoices demanding payment from Intellacorn
fcr a "sewice agreement" before the cameras were even installed,
31. No LCCC official, other than Mr. Moses, questioned why ln'ie~laccrn
should i-13ceive payments for se~~ic ing a system that did no: yet exist.
Construction Mana~er
32. In 2006, Mr. Moses became aware that a large amount of
money was missing from an account at LCCC.
33. When Mr. Moses investigated the reason for the missing funds, he was
told by Amico that the money was a down-payment from LCCC to SamCar Group, LI-D
for construction management. SamCar Group, LTD is a construction management firm
owned by Samuel J. Marranca ("Marranca").
34. SzmCar Group, LTD later partnered with Precept Assoc;is-ies LEC on the
LCCC project. Precept Associates LLC is a company which is located at I886
Highway 31 5, Plains Township, PA. Precept Associates LLC has the same address as
Prociak and Associates, the auditing firm used by LCCC and obvneb by Michael
Prcciak. Mr, Prolsiak was also the campaign manager for Luzerne County
Commissioner and LCGC Board Secretary Skrepenak. Further, the President of
Precegt Associates LLC, Robed Higdon ("Higdon"), did remodeling work on
Skrepcnak's home.
45. Funding for the construction jobs SarnCar Group, LTB and/or Precept
Asseciati.es L tC were purportedly paid to strpervise had not even been approvsef whet;
LCCC made the initial down payment.
36. LCCC president Leary unilaterally approved the SamCsr Group, LTD
and/or Precept Associates LLC contract without consulting with LCCC solicitor, Joseph
Klcrgei-, Esq.
37. The practice of LCCC had been that no contrzct wouid be finalized
without approval of the solicitor. On one occasion, Mr. Moses complained to P,rnico and
Gasper that this practice was abandoned.
38. Leary later stated that he signed the SamCar Group, LS-5
and,& Precept Associates LLC contract without even reading it.
39. Further, the LCCC Board did not approve the contracted 8% rate on aii
construction costs which SamCar Group, LTD and/or Precept Associates LLC was lo
receive, That rate was well above the standard industry rate.
40. Additionally, the SamCar Group, LTB and/or Precept Associates FLC
contracj went beyond the scope of a previous Board resolution wi~ich approved hiring
Precept Ass~ciates to manage construction sf only two projects
41. LCCC already had a construction manager who was on the LSCC
- payroll. ! herefore, an outside construction manager was a complete waste, let s;lone
the waste created by an outside construction manager charging well above slanosrd
industry rates.
42. Mr. Moses in good faith reported this waste and wrongdoing ti> Amico.
Amico was already aware that the down payment had gone to SarnCar Groua, LTB
and/or Qrecept Associztes LLC. Arnica fe?d Mr. Mosets that Learl;, Scera~tiilo, Gasper
an$ Linskey k n ~ w about it.
43. Scarantino subsequently approached Mr. Moses about questioning this
paymeat ro SarnCar Group, LTB and/or Precept Associates LLC. Scarantino again
threatened Mr. Moses with his job.
Carpetinq
44. In 2007, LCCC required new carpeting. Scarantino informed Mra Mosas
that King Glass was to receive the contract for the carpeting work.
45. Mr. Moses reminded Scarantino that three bids w~ulcl be required before
it could be decided who would receive the contract.
6 . Scarantino falsely informed Mr. Moses that LCCC is parl of a
"consortium," allowing it to purchase under "state contract" w1ithou.t receiving qtroiations.
47. Unbeknownst to Mr. Moses at the time, LCCC had indeed already
received price quofa.3:ions from companies other than King Glass.
48. When King Glass submitted its price quote, it was the lowest o: all bids
received. Therefore, King Glass was awarded the contract.
48, t-iowever, after the work was performed, Mr. Moses received a hi11 from
King Glass which exceeded not only the original quote from King Glass but also
exceeded the other bids submitted for the job.
50. Mr. Moses contacted King Glass and explained that LCGC would amly psiji
the quoted prics.
51. Subsequentiy, Scarantino contacted Mr. Moses anc? instructed hiin to pay
the inf!ated t<icg GIass bill in full.
Laxkcaping
52. In early 2007, Mr. Moses became aware of a scheme that
Scarantino, Anthony Rostock ("Rostock") and Leary were using to defraud Luzerne
C o ~ n l y taxpayers.
53. Rostock was also a Pittston Area School Board member serving with
Scarantino.
54. Landscaping items were being purchased by LCCC from Sklro's Lawn
and Garden Center in Hanover Township.
55. Ifistead of using Skiro's to install the iandscaping ikems, LCCC dsed
its own staff to install the items.
56. However, Scarantino needed to figure out a way to "cornpensaie"
Rostosk.
57. LCCC paid Rostock a "supervision fee" regarding the labor performed by
LCCC's own maintenance staff.
58. 'Alheri Mr. Moses reported this wrongdoing and waste to Arnica; h e was
told to mind his cwn business.
Hiring Practices
59. lniermittently throughout his empioyment with LCCC, Mr. Mosss was a
pa2 of different Search Committees at LCCC which were in charge of interviewing
candidates for certain positions within LCCG.
3 . The Search Cornmittess utilized a rating system f3r employment
candidates.
61. When Scarantino became Chairperson of the Board of Trustees in
2003, a pattern developed in which Amico and others instructed the Search
Committees as to who Scarantino wanted hired, regardless of whether cr not
Scarantino's ch~sen candidate interviewed or what Scaranti~o's candisfais's score was
on the rating system.
6 2 On one occasion, an individual named John Adonizio interviewed for the
position of night shift custodial supervisor
63. Mr. Adonizio also served on the Pittston Area School Board with
Scarantino.
54. During the interview, Mr. Adonizio disclosed that he does not knsw ho;a to
clean. Mr. Adonizio scored a "0" on the 1 through 10 rating system for prospective
employees.
65. After M r . Adonizio's interview, Conahan-DeJoseph, the Chairperson
of f-lurrzan Resources and member of the Board of Trustees approached Mr, Moses,
Conahan-5eJoseph told Mr. M ~ s e s to change Mr. Adonimis's scores because
Scarantino wanted to hire him.
66. M r . Moses refused to change Mr. Adonizio's scores. Then, Canahan-
DeJoseph ordered Mr. Moses to write a memo to Arnico stating that even though IVIr
Adonizis was not the top scorer, he had the proper disposition for the positisn.
7 . LCCC hired Mr. Adonifis.
68. Subsequent to Mr. Adonizio's employment, Mr. Adonizio \was czrrvieied of
DUl and lost his driver's license for 12 months as a result of this conviction.
69. LCCC then hired another individual, Mr. Michael Bliveri, as a night
custodian.
70. Scarantino told Mr. Moses Mr. Oiiveri's primary job duty was to
chauffezr Mr. Adonizio to and from work while his iicense was ur?der suspension.
71. On one occasion, Amico told the Search Committee that Michelle Piazza
must be chosen to head the Alcohol Abuse Program, even though she was not the
highest rated candidate.
72. Mr. Moses objected, reported this waste and wrongdoing to drnico. li14r.
Moses was not asked to serve on any further Search Committees.
Retaliation
73. In December of 2087, Mr. Moses became aware "ihat approximately a
$1 200.013 deposit was missing from the cafeteria. Mr. Moses report86 the i??issing
deposir to Amico.
74. Mr. Moses subsequently went on vacation and the missing deposit was
investigated.
75. When he returned from vacation, Leary told Mr. Moses fhst the missir~g
deposit investigation was leading to Mr. Moses.
76. Felon Scarantino, Cofiahan-DeJoseph, Arnico and Leary pressured IWr.
Muses to retire.
77. Wlr, Moses refused to retire.
75. Officials at LCCC referred their internal investigation regarding the missing
deposiT to the Nanticoke Police Department for the purpose of charging Mr. h?\r4oses with
crirnes in order to have a reason to terminate Mr. Moses's empicryment. Ths re31
12
reason LCCC and its corrupt officials desired to terminate Mr. Moses and to charge him
with crimes was because of Mr. Moses's whistleblowing activities.
79. On September 23, 2008, LCCC terminated Mr. Moses's employment.
83. Mi-. Moses's termination was in ret-aiiation for Mr. kioses's good faith
disclasures 05 government wrongdoing and waste on numerous occasions throughout
felon Scararrtino's tenure as Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.
COUNT ONE (43 Pa.C.S. S1421 el seq.; Injunction)
81. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 through 80 herein.
83. Defendant threatened, discriminated against or retaliated against plaintiff
regarding his compsnsation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment becatase he
mads gocd faith reports to his employer cf insSances of wrcrrsgdcsing.
83. Mr. Moses's work record now shows that he was terminated by
LCCC. This wil! permanently impair his position with any future, potential employer.
84. Mr. Moses does not have an adequate remedy at law.
COUNT TWO (43 Pa.C.S. $1421 et seq.)
85. Plaintiff repeals and realleges each and every allegation contained i r ~
pa:sg"aphs 1 through 84 herein.
5 . Defendant threatened, discriminated against or retaliated against plairtiifi:
regarding ? i s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of emp!syrrie~t because he
made good faith reports to his employer of instances of wrongdoing.
87. As a result of such conduct, plaintiff suffered darnage.
13
VVHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
A. For Count One, an Order reinstating plaintiff to his previous
ernpbyrnent with LCCC and purging plaintiff's personnel file and all other fiies
concerning plaintiff of any reference to any discipline or termination, pius back pay and
front pay;
5. For Count Two, an amount in excess of $50,000, including punitive
damages, plus interest;
C. For Plaintiff's attorneys' fees pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S. $7425;
D. For costs, witness fees and disbursements incurred in this action;
and
E. Any such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respecttuliy Submitted,
S el ey L. Centini, Esq. u r s y H. Dyller, Esq.
BYLLER LA141 FIRM 85 North Franklin Sireel Wilkes-Barre, PA 1 Ei7QI
(570) 829-4869
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct, except
those statements alleged upon information and belief, which stateme~ts I believe to be
true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904, relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities.
Peter Moses