A former Macungie manager has sued the borough, alleging his removal from the position was \u201cunlawful.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
John A. Brown\u2019s complaint against the borough was filed May 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to court documents.<\/p>\n
The complaint alleges that Brown, who served as the manager until Dec. 31, was terminated \u201cbased on a decision made outside public view\u201d and before any public vote of the borough council. Pennsylvania\u2019s borough code only allows a borough manager\u2019s removal \u201cby official action of Borough Council taken at a public meeting,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Borough\u2019s conduct was not the result of mistake or inadvertence, but of a deliberate method of governance in which determinative employment decisions were made privately and presented publicly as faits accomplis,\u201d the complaint said.<\/p>\n
It added, \u201cAt all relevant times, the Borough acted through its Borough Council, which possessed final policymaking authority with respect to the hiring, supervision, discipline, and removal of the Borough Manager.\u201d<\/p>\n
The complaint explains the borough\u2019s labor relations attorney allegedly called Brown on Oct. 3. Brown was told that during the evening prior, the borough council met in executive session and decided to terminate Brown\u2019s employment effective Dec. 31. He was also reportedly not informed of any public meeting, motion, resolution, ordinance or vote regarding the decision.<\/p>\n
\u201cPrior to October 3, 2025, Plaintiff had ongoing disputes with Borough leadership concerning compliance with statutory requirements, governance practices, and directives that Plaintiff believed were improper or unlawful,\u201d the court document added.<\/p>\n
After Oct. 3, according to the complaint, Brown was directed \u201cby Borough officials and\/or counsel to provide access to Borough bank accounts, payroll systems, and other sensitive financial and personnel records to a proposed successor or third party before legally required safeguards were satisfied. \u2026 [Brown] refused to provide such access because he reasonably believed doing so would violate Pennsylvania law and municipal obligations, including requirements relating to bonding, background verification, and the safeguarding of public funds and confidential information.\u201d<\/p>\n
By Dec. 31, the borough council hadn\u2019t conducted a public vote, given public notice, adopted an ordinance or resolution or created a contemporaneous written record regarding Brown\u2019s termination, the complaint said.<\/p>\n