Staff file photo / Ed Runyan
Mahoning County Commissioner David Ditzler is seen at the July 11 Mahoning County commissioners meeting, where he and a Rudzik Excavating project manager spoke about their differences on the need for project labor agreements on county construction projects.

Staff photo / Ed Runyan
James Tressa, senior estimator / project manager for Rudzik Excavating is seen at the July 11 Mahoning County commissioners meeting.

YOUNGSTOWN — The Mahoning County commissioners and former Mahoning County Prosecutor Gina DeGenova have responded to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against them by Rudzik Excavating of Struthers in a dispute over project labor agreements.

In the lawsuit, Rudzik alleged that the county officials “are liable for statutory civil liability for acts including intimidation, tampering with records, tampering with evidence mail fraud, attempted theft” and other crimes as a result of their public statements aimed at Rudzik for speaking out about the county’s “costly project labor agreements (PLAs) on certain construction jobs.”

The suit defines PLAs as “collective bargaining agreements between building trade unions and contractors” that “govern terms and conditions of employment for all workers — union and non-union — on a construction project.”

The lawsuit states that after James Tressa, a senior estimator / project manager for Rudzik, spoke against PLAs, Commissioner David Ditzler likewise spoke at commissioners meetings, on a radio talk show and to the news media about PLAs.

Rudzik bid on two construction projects that required the company to sign a PLA, but because they would not sign it, their bid was rejected, despite it being the apparent low bidder, the suit states. After that, the county prosecutor’s office took action against Rudzik to seek forfeiture of Rudzik’s bid bonds, but Mahoning County is not entitled to the payment, the suit alleges.

The county commissioners’ response states that the commissioners are “entitled to immunity, including absolute, qualified and statutory immunity, as well as immunity from punitive damages.” It states that Rudzik’s claims “are barred, as (the commissioners) acted reasonably, lawfully, in good faith with probable cause and with privilege at all times.” The prosecutor’s office response states that Rudzik’s claims are barred because the prosecutor’s office “acted in good faith.”

The commissioners and members of the county prosecutor’s office “acted with malice, ill will, spite, ulterior motives and with intent to harm Rudzik Excavating,” the suit alleges.

The responses from attorneys Daniel Downey and Matthew Young of the Columbus area on behalf of the county commissioners, and John McLandrich and Zachary Anderson of the Cleveland area on behalf of the county prosecutor’s office, state the commissioners and prosecutor’s office “deny or deny for want of information all allegations.”

As to allegations that Ditzler called into an April 2, 2024, radio show while Tressa was on the broadcast and gave “misinformation concerning PLAs,” the county and prosecutor responses state “the referenced recording speaks for itself, and all allegations contained therein are denied to the extent they are out of context or inaccurate.”

The lawsuit alleges that the commissioners “enacted the original PLA to garner the political support of the unions for the upcoming, hotly contested 2020 elections.”

The commissioners’ response states they “deny the allegations … for want of knowledge.” The prosecutors’ response states they “deny or deny for want of information” on the allegation.

The lawsuit alleges that when the commissioners had a special meeting July 5, 2024, and approved a resolution finding that Rudzik’s bids were “non-responsive” because of Rudzik’s refusal to sign PLA agreements, the commissioners did it “in hopes of avoiding public scrutiny for what they were about to do. The commissioners could have addressed the topic of the July 5 special meeting at their regularly scheduled meeting two days earlier but chose instead to hold a special meeting the morning after the holiday.”

The county and prosecutors’ responses to the allegation were that “the events of the meetings and resolutions speak for themselves” and the commissioners “deny or deny for want of knowledge” the remaining allegations.”

In an interview with The Vindicator after the commissioners rejected Rudzik’s bids, Rudzik’s president, Jeff Rudzik, said the company objects to having to sign a PLA because it would require Rudzik to use union workers on the project.

He said the commissioners argue that using a PLA benefits a project by reducing change orders, improving manpower and safety. “But when you ask them how any of that is improved by the PLA, they can’t answer that.”

The lawsuit alleges that at the July 18 commissioners meeting, Commissioner Carol Rimedio Righetti “was unable to hide her animosity for Rudzik Excavating and others who dared (to question) the commissioners.”

The suit states that Rudzik’s “public speaking and questioning / petitioning the government is protected First Amendment speech, which defendants are trying to suppress and retaliate against.”

The suit further states that Ditzler also “spoke about the necessity of PLAs to ensure timely completion of projects, to protect workers and to minimize costs, but then admitted that PLAs have only been included on six projects in 10 years — raising the question that, if PLAs are so important, why are they not included on all possible projects?”

The commissioners’ and prosecutor’s office responses to those allegations were that the “referenced recording (of the meeting) speaks for itself, and all allegations contained therein are denied to the extent they are taken out of context or inaccurate.” The responses also state that the commissioners “deny or deny for want of knowledge the remaining allegations.”

The case has no hearings scheduled.