A former maintenance worker for Somerset County, who claims he was terminated from his job because he made a critical comment about the hiring practices of the county commissioners, can now move ahead with a civil rights lawsuit he has filed in the federal District Court in Johnstown.

A three-member panel of judges from the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision Wednesday affirming Eric Trent’s right to sue.

Trent worked for the Somerset County maintenance department for 3½ years.

On March 23, 2019, he was in attendance at a Megashow in the county, while his wife worked at a food vending booth operated by her father.

Although Trent was a county employee, he also lived in the county and, he contended in his lawsuit, as a constituent, he took the occasion to talk to the president of the Board of County Commissioners, Gerald Walker.

During his discussion, he “expressed his strong disagreement” with the board’s hiring practices.

He complained that the commissioners gave preference to people from outside the county and even the state when hiring, and, he said, he would work to remove Walker from office in view of several recent controversial hires.

According to allegations in Trent’s civil rights lawsuit, Walker shook hands with him and agreed to talk about the situation at a later date.

Trent noted in his lawsuit he was concerned about two recent hires that included a new warden for the prison and a director of maintenance. Both of the hires were from Texas.

His lawsuit noted that he and other employees had brought up the issue at commissioners’ meetings and that the subject of hiring policies had become a “taxpayer concern.”

Eventually, Walker set up a meeting with Trent, but 10 minutes after the telephone call, Trent was escorted off the premises and was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly being intoxicated and threatening toward Walker and personnel in the Human Resources Department.

He eventually was found not guilty of disorderly conduct.

Trent stated in his lawsuit that he believed Walker made false allegations against him and they led to his termination by the three-member Board of Commissioners.

Trent, through Pittsburgh attorneys Ernest B. Orsatti, Ira H. Weinstock and John B. Dougherty, responded by filing a civil rights lawsuit naming Somerset County and Walker as defendants.

It charges that he had the right under the First Amendment to the Constitution to “speak freely on matters of public concern.”

The lawsuit stated, “Defendants Somerset County and Gerald Walker terminated (Trent) because of and in retaliation for his exercise of his right to speak freely on matters of public concern and, therefore, defendants violated (his) rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution.”

He is seeking money damages for lost income and benefits, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of reputation and inconvenience.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but on Sept. 26, 2022, U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines in Johnstown denied their request and, in a separate order, ruled that Walker was not entitled to qualified immunity, a protection from lawsuit normally granted to public officials.

The defendants appealed her decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.

The panel that heard the appeal included Judges D. Brooks Smith, D. Michael Fisher and Thomas Hardiman.

The opinion from the 3rd Circuit upheld Haines’ dismissal of the defendants’ objections by a 2-1 margin, with Smith and Fisher affirming Haines and Hardiman dissenting.

Hardiman in his dissent concluded that Haines “did not actually define the right (of immunity) at all.”

He recommended the case be remanded to Haines with instructions to more clearly define the right to immunity for Walker and other public officials.

“Only then can the (appeals court) determine whether Walker is entitled to immunity.”

The appeals court, looking at the case from Trent’s viewpoint in which he charges a First Amendment retaliation violation, related that he must show his speech (comments to Walker) were protected under the Constitution, and his comments were a “motivating factor in the alleged retaliatory action (his termination).”

The appeals court explained Trent had to show: that he was speaking as a citizen, not as an employee; that his speech related to a matter of public concern; and that the government in terminating him lacked “adequate justification.”

The panel found that Trent’s comments were protected by the First Amendment.

Trent spoke to Walker outside the workplace, indicating he disagreed with the county’s hiring practices.

“The comments had nothing to do with Trent’s job duties,” the appeals court reported.

“Trent spoke as a citizen, not as an employee,” the opinion continued.

His comments were a matter of public concern, the judges ruled.

“Local government matters, including who is hired, are not too small or parochial to be public concerns: both great and smaller causes are protected,” the 3rd Circuit opinion stated, addressing the point that the protected speech must be of public importance.

The panel then found that the county, based on the facts available so far, “lacked a justification for treating him differently (by firing him) than they would as a member of the public.”

The panel emphasized Trent’s civil rights action is only in its initial stages.

“Trent’s case is at the pleading stage, so we have only his side of the story,” the opinion clarified.

The case presently has been stayed by Haines, but she noted that the next step is for the defendants to file an answer to Trent’s petition.

Walker was defeated for re-election last year after serving two terms as commissioner.