Attorneys argue in court over whether suspended Someret DA Thomas is due back pay

Feb. 10—SOMERSET, Pa. — Attorneys representing Somerset County and suspended District Attorney Jeffrey Thomas outlined arguments in civil court Friday over whether Somerset's Salary Board had the right to halt his pay.

The sides also debated whether or not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should become a party to the case, a move that could impact where the salary question is debated.

Thomas, who is waiting trial in March on sex assault charges, is seeking back-pay dating back to the fall of 2021.

He was suspended through a Pennsylvania Supreme Court order based on recommendations by the state disciplinary board — and county salary board members voted to cease his pay citing a newly amended law requiring district attorneys to have active law license to oversee the job.

Somerset County Judge Dan Rullo spent more than 90 minutes listening to both sides — sometimes raising questions to get to the core of their opposing arguments.

Thomas' Pittsburgh attorney said Friday that law doesn't specify that the elected prosecutor would lose his pay, too.

"He has not been found guilty of any crime. He hasn't resigned or been impeached," Attorney Richard Haft said. "This isn't a case where he's a (typical) county employee. He's an elected official."

And as someone appointed by county voters , Haft argued, "he's legally entitled to the benefits of that position."

But Rullo, who did not rule on the matter Friday, raised open questions to Haft and Somerset County's attorney, Christopher Furman, about what should be expected to occur if an elected official states that he won't perform his duties — or a situation arises where he cannot.

"Is there a quid pro quo that says, 'I'm not going to perform my duties but I still want paid?'" Rullo asked Haft.

Furman argued against that notion, saying that Thomas is unable to perform any of his duties as prosecutor — "and he shouldn't get paid."

Furman argued: "There's an administrative order that bars him from even entering court, unless he's a defendant or victim," while citing guidelines that a prosecutor "must devote"his or her time to the job, including managing and prosecuting cases and paying office bills.

But Rullo also responded that there are also instances when elected officials are forced to step away from their posts — such as for health issues — or cannot perform their duties, but still get paid.

Thomas, he said, isn't performing his duties because a Supreme Court Order prevents it — and because "he's waiting the outcome of his charges," Rullo added.

Rullo indicated he's going to consider the arguments and will respond at a later date. He did not set a timetable for his opinion.

Rullo also noted matters need to be settled about whether the Commonwealth should be a party in the case.

Thomas' $185,000-per-year salary is paid by the county, but 65 percent is reimbursed by the state.

Haft noted that is state law — and that if a judge orders Thomas to receive back pay, the Commonwealth would be on the hook for its share.

But Furman said the county is already paying and being partly reimbursed for one district attorney's salary — due to the same statute, the District Attorney Modernization Act, which states that the acting DA receives the same compensation.

If the county would hypothetically lose the case, there might be no remedy for the county to seek partial reimbursement for Thomas' backpay, Furman said.

A ruling could also raise the possibility that the state's civil appeals branch, the Commonwealth Court, could have oversight, Rullo indicated.