Former Tyrone borough manager Nathan George’s attorney, Joseph Cavrich, has responded to a statement issued yesterday by the borough regarding its actions regarding George’s dismissal.
“I’m not surprised they issued a statement,” said Cavrich. “There has been overwhelming support for Nathan and the borough had to say something.”
Cavrich said he did not find anything noteworthy about the statement, indicating it is what the borough’s said all along.
“They are saying they have properly terminated Nathan and haven’t violated any laws in doing so.”
George and the borough are at odds on whether or not his termination was for “cause” and when council took its official action. He has claimed his dismissal was retaliatory for his efforts to exercise his supervisory powers regarding another employee.
He’s also contended the borough violated the state’s Sunshine Law by taking official action at an executive session on June 8. George also has indicated he thinks the borough violated its home rule charter by not letting him exercise his powers and duties.
The borough, in its statement, indicates it took no official action in executive session and reiterated its position his dismissal was with cause and that all parties, including George, are aware of the issues which led to council’s decision.
Council did take action during its June 11 special public meeting, by voting six to one to terminate George with cause, effective immediately.
Cavrich contends the borough’s statement is designed to create what he describes as a “pretext” for the borough’s actions.
Cavrich explained a pretext is sometimes developed by a former employer in discrimination and retaliation employment cases.
“It’s done to provide ostensible reasons or motive as a sort of cover…a false reason, (for dismissal) to cover the real reason,” said Cavrich. “It (the statement) is not in accordance with the facts. It’s an effort on the part of the borough to establish a pretext.”
Cavrich explained his primary practice is in the area of employment law, but he usually is involved in the defense on the employer’s side.
“Occasionally, there are cases where the conduct is so egregious (on the employer’s part) I’m willing to take a look at and handle a case (for an employee).
“This is not just a Sunshine Act issue. It’s also about violations of the home rule charter,” said Cavrich. “It’s an alleged retaliation for Nathan suggesting the borough follow its home rule charter and let him do his job.
“They disagreed with him and they took him out,” said Cavrich. “There are other issues I’m not at liberty to disclose. Nathan and I are still hopeful council is willing to sit down (and talk about it.)
“I’m hopeful, but not to the extreme of being optimistic,” Cavrich told The Daily Herald.
Cavrich would like to see what council has to say rather than see them continue to deny what has happened based on George’s allegations.
“I’m not sure if the level of public discourse has helped the situation,” said Cavrich. “But Nathan must tell his story. He wants the story to come out.
“I would like to question the council, the mayor and the solicitor,” the attorney said. “Don’t hire him to do a job. Then when he tries to do it, you don’t like it, and you dismiss him. Nathan’s conduct concerns the job he was empowered to do.
“People need to hear this story. Those elected to office (are expected) to follow the home rule charter. I’m fully confident the public will find it’s not Nathan’s conduct they should be concerned about, but rather it’s the borough’s.”
