MVSD ruling: Iberis due 1-year severance pay

The appeals court ruled that a defamation claim was rightly dismissed.
WARREN -- An appeals court has ruled that a dismissed executive director of the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District is entitled to one year's severance pay.
Visiting Judge Robert B. Ford, sitting in Trumbull Court of Common Pleas Court, was also wrong to dismiss a claim that Michael Iberis, the former executive director, was fired for cooperating with a state investigation of the agency, the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled.
Iberis was executive director of the district from 1993 to 1996, when he was fired by the board of directors. He made $57,447 a year.
He subsequently sued the district, contending the dismissal violated his employment contract and that he was terminated for cooperating into with an investigation into corrupt practices at the district.
Dismissal: Judge Ford dismissed the case in February and rejected Iberis' contention that he should have received the year's severance pay called for in his contract.
The judge ruled that the contract was void because it contradicted a state law that says district employees can be terminated at the will of the district board.
In its ruling, the appeals court agreed that the district board had the authority to fire Iberis but that the portion of the contract that dealt with severance pay was legal.
The former executive director is entitled to a year's severance pay, the appeals court said.
Appeals court: The appeals court also ruled that the trial court should have examined more closely Iberis' claim that he was fired because he cooperated with a corruption investigation by the Ohio Auditor and because he opposed illegal retaliatory actions against two employees.
The investigation resulted in $2.7 million in findings for recovery against current and former district officials.
The trial court dismissed Iberis' claim based on an overly narrow interpretation of Ohio's whistle-blower statute, the appeals court ruled.
Blair has said that Iberis' dismissal was based not on his cooperation with authorities but rather poor job performance.
The appeals court also ruled that the trial court judge was correct to throw out Iberis' contention that a letter from district board president Matthew Blair to the state auditor's office constituted defamation of character.