Taxpayers foot bill for employees being sued by ‘Joe the Plumber’

Dayton Daily Nerws ^ | Noveember 15, 2009 | William Hershey

[4rcane]

its outrageous that taxpayers money are used to defend against criminals. They should use their own money

[ColdSteelTalon]

Too bad the state is responsible for its employees. In fact the state should be prosecuting them. In fact Joe should be if not already suing the state. I know I would.

[Stand Watch Listen]

I quite agree. As the article sets forth

" For those to come into play, a determination must be made that the employee was acting “manifestly outside the scope of his official employment or official responsibilities, with malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner.”

Surely these 'civil servants' acted maliciously and ouside the scope of their official duties.

[I see my hands]

"its outrageous that taxpayers money are used to defend against criminals"

Yep, outrageous and I love it. To heck and worse with that Zero voting state.

[Snurple]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Getem Joe.

[Crim]

I’m sure he covering for brunner somehow...

[tdscpa]

They were employees of a democrat administration. I have no problem believing their official duties include criminal activities against Republicans or anyone else who opposes them or their leaders.

[ZOOKER]

This is a perfect example of the “Exceptions” clause written into the requirements. Was there official request from their superior(s) for this info? Was there a valid complaint, evidence of wrongdoing? If not, accessing the info was NOT a part of their job, and the State should not be forced to defend their actions.

[papasmurf]

What they did was not “in the course of their employment”, it was an illegal act, outside of their employment and not sanctioned by their employer.

[boop]

Like HIPPA, you can’t just look up info on people. This is illegal in the medical profession, why should these Obamaites be exempt?

[Outlaw Woman]

"“It’s an outrageous use of taxpayer money to defend the invasion of a citizen’s privacy.”

But it was ok to use taxpayer money to invade.....

[Outlaw Woman]

Well put.

[FredZarguna]

That looks like a slam dunk based on the plain language of the law.

[riri]

Boo hoo.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I’d say that if a govt employee gets in trouble with his employer he has been shown to be guilty beyond any doubt.
That means he acted outside of the rules for his position, and that means the AG doesn’t have to represent him.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Finish your comment. Invade whom?

[SkyPilot]

Cordray, a Democrat, said last week that he is following state law that “says in effect if you’re a state employee and you’re sued for work done in the course ... of your employment, you’re entitled to a defense by the state attorney general’s office.”

Uhhhhhhh......is he saying criminal behavior is part of their job?

[flowerplough]

They were employees of a democrat administration, but the press is almost all Democrat, almost all the time, and, in my eye, worded the headline too ambiguously. I thought ‘Taxpayers foot bill for employees being sued by ‘Joe the Plumber’ was above a story about Joe suing some of his own workers, with the state holding the bag. If I’d written the headline, it would read ‘Taxpayers foot bill for former state employees being sued by ‘Joe the Plumber’.