A federal lawsuit by Scranton Councilman Jack Loscombe alleging his civil rights were violated by the suspension of his firefighter pension is still pending.
Filed in 2010, a few months after Mr. Loscombe's pension was stopped when he became a councilman, the lawsuit claims city enforcement of a nearly 50-year-old ordinance prohibiting simultaneous payment of both a pension and a salary violates his First Amendment right to hold elective office, as well as other constitutional rights for equal protection and against unlawful seizure.
A retired city fire captain, Mr. Loscombe had received a pension of about $22,000 annually until it was suspended after he was appointed to council in 2010 - a post paying $12,500 a year.
The ordinance, which was intended to prevent "double- dipping" by earning both a pension and an active salary from the city, states: "When any firemen is pensioned and thereafter enters the service of the city in any capacity, with compensation, the pension of such person shall be suspended during his term of service."
However, in suing the city, its three pension boards and Mayor Chris Doherty, Mr. Loscombe claims his constitutional rights were violated when his pension was suspended because he was appointed to the paid position of member of council.
The ordinance is "impermissibly broad since it prevents the exercise of free expression" of Mr. Loscombe by requiring him to surrender his disability pension to be able to serve as an elected city official, argues a brief filed in November by Mr. Loscombe's attorney, Cynthia Pollick of Pittston.
Mr. Loscombe "is not looking to siphon extra money from public coffers," but rather is a "decorated, respected former fire captain who devoted his professional career to serving the citizens of Scranton," Ms. Pollick's brief states. The disability pension is "hard-earned, essential compensation for the physical sacrifices" he made as a firefighter.
Because the ordinance applies to former police and firefighters but not to former nonuniform employees, they apparently are allowed to double-dip, and thus the ordinance "is plainly discriminatory against public safety officers," the lawsuit claims.
But the defense seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, which is now in its third-amended version. The defense argues Mr. Loscombe has failed to establish any constitutional deprivation of rights from the "simple and straightforward application of the provisions of a longstanding (city) ordinance" that mandated suspension of the pension when he chose to become a councilman, according to legal papers filed by attorney Timothy Foley, who is representing the city.
Efforts to reach Mr. Loscombe or attorneys on both sides were unsuccessful.
In an August ruling in the case, a judge found there was no evidence the mayor was personally involved in the decision to suspend Mr. Loscombe's pension. However, the judge allowed the suit against the city to proceed because there "remain allegations that the ordinance was unconstitutional," that ruling stated.
Contact the writer: jlockwood@timesshamrock.com