Attorneys for Center Township and a former township employee presented arguments about the township’s motion to dismiss the former employee’s wrongful termination and whistleblower lawsuit.

Judge S. Michael Yeager did not rule in the case, heard Wednesday, Sept. 14, in Butler County Common Pleas Court. He said he will consider the arguments.

The lawsuit revolves around the township’s termination of Patrick Gauselmann as zoning officer in November 2020 following a disagreement over a building permit sought by a business. He began working for the township part time in 2017 and was made full time in January 2019. He also worked as the township’s public works director.

Arguing for summary judgment against the wrongful termination claim, Sheryl Brown, the attorney representing the township, said Gauselmann was an at-will employee, and the township supervisors have the right to fire such employees as long as the termination is not discriminatory.

She cited another civil case in which a judge ruled that supervisors in a different municipality who terminated a zoning officer because they weren’t happy with his job performance did not violate public policy.

Brown also said Gauselmann accepted another job on Nov. 12, 2020, before the supervisors terminated him.

Attorney Rebecca Black, who represents Gauselmann, said he couldn’t issue the building permit without approval from the zoning hearing board, and supervisors don’t have the authority to grant exceptions from the zoning ordinance.

“He was told, do what we say or you’re fired,” Black said.

She said Gauselmann qualifies as a whistleblower because he brought the problems with the permit application to the attention of the supervisors.

“He doesn’t have the authority to issue a permit that doesn’t comply with the law,” Black said.

Supervisors suspended Gauselmann without pay on Oct. 27, 2020, and voted 3-2 to terminate him on Nov. 17, she said.

Brown said Gauselmann’s claim — that the supervisors violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Protection Act by terminating Gauselmann — should be dismissed. She noted that he eventually issued a building permit that he initially denied.

The permit for Martin Sales and Service on North Main Street Extension was a point of contention between Gauselmann and the supervisors, according to the attorneys.

Martin Sales and Service submitted a land development plan in October 2019 to building a storage building, consolidate two lots and regrade the property. After reviewing the proposed plan, Gauselmann told the township engineer that the grading, building setback and parking did not comply with township ordinance requirements, according to the suit.

The township planning commission voted to recommend approval of the plan to the supervisors in January 2020. The engineer recommended approval to the commission.

When the supervisors considered the plan at a meeting in Feb. 12, 2020, Gauselmann told them the plan didn’t comply with the parking requirements in the township’s zoning ordinance, and he voiced concerns about the plan’s stormwater retention system, fire hydrants and screening.

A Martin representative verbally requested a modification from the ordinance’s screening and landscaping requirements, which the supervisors approved. The supervisors then granted preliminary and final approval of the land development plan.

In June 2020, an architectural and engineering firm submitted an application for a building permit for the plan that Gauselmann denied for two reasons. He said the property owner didn’t comply with the approved land development plan because they added an area of impervious surface, and the application had to be first approved by the township zoning hearing board.

He also informed the firm that a stormwater management plan for the project had to be submitted to and approved by the township planning commission and supervisors.

The property owner did not submit a storm water management plan, and the land development plan did not include screening required by the ordinance.

Responding to a request from Supervisor Ron Flatt, Gauselmann submitted a list of the issues he had with the Martin plan. Flatt told Gauselmann that the property owner will not be required to appear before the zoning hearing board and that the action by the supervisors in February authorized the issuance of a building permit, according to the suit.

In September that year, Supervisor Ed Latuska told Gauselmann that he would be terminated if he didn’t issue the permit, according to the suit.

Following an executive session called for personnel during the supervisors’ Sept. 9 meeting, the supervisors approved a motion saying their Feb. 12 action included approving the Martin plan, and the ordinance modifications that were verbally requested.

On Sept. 10, the supervisors asked him to resign from his position as public works manager. He wrote to all of the supervisors, asking why he was asked to resign, but got no response, according to the suit.

The supervisors held an emergency meeting Sept. 17 to select a public works foreman to replace Gauselmann, whom they said had resigned Sept. 10. But he had never resigned, according to the suit.

On Oct. 27, the supervisors informed Gauselmann that he was suspended from his employment entirely, and the supervisors intended to consider terminating him Nov. 10. Flatt said Gauselmann was suspended because he refused to issue the building permit. He also failed to require the Martins to appear before the zoning hearing board, “which was confusing and very contradictory,” according to the suit.

In addition, the supervisors informed Gauselmann that he was entitled to a “Loudermill hearing” — part of the due process requirement that must be provided to a public employee prior to termination. Before that hearing and before the supervisors voted to terminate him, the supervisors hired a company to serve as the zoning office on Nov. 10, according to the suit.

Before the Loudermill hearing Nov. 13, the township solicitor informed Gauselmann of the three reasons he was suspended and terminated. The reasons are insubordination, disobedience of orders and failure to perform his duties as zoning officer, according to the suit.

On Nov. 17, the supervisors ratified Gauselmann’s suspension and termination as zoning officer.