OAG Settles in Agents' Retaliation Case Against Ex-AG Kane
Two years after Kathleen Kane's sentencing on perjury and related charges, two agents who sued her for retaliation will get a $75,000 settlement.
November 15, 2018 at 03:09 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General has agreed to settle a case brought by two agents who had alleged that former AG Kathleen Kane retaliated against them and tried to damage their reputations after they testified before a grand jury about an OAG investigation Kane shut down.
The OAG agreed to pay $75,000 to Michael Carlson, who is still an agent for the office, and Michael Cranga, a former OAG agent. A spokesman for the OAG confirmed the settlement, but declined to comment further on the case. The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal Nov. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Theirs was one of several cases that OAG employees or former employees brought against Kane while she was still in office. Also named as a defendant was her chief of staff, Jonathan Duecker, who was fired from the office soon after Kane's conviction.
Kane was convicted of perjury and related charges in August 2016, and was sentenced to 10 to 23 months in jail and eight years of probation. She appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which affirmed her conviction earlier this year, but she has been released on $75,000 bail through the rest of the appeals process. She filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the state Supreme Court in June.
Carlson and Cranga brought their complaint against Kane and Duecker in December 2015, a few months after Kane was charged by Montgomery County prosecutors.
It centers largely around the agents' involvement in an investigation of five black Philadelphia politicians. The complaint contended that Carlson and Cranga's reputations were damaged when Kane announced that she declined to prosecute the case because the investigation was racially motivated.
According to the complaint in Carlson v. Kane, Carlson and Cranga were “instrumental” in investigating the Philadelphia politicians, who were caught on tape taking bribes. The probe became known as the “Ali investigation” for the name of the confidential informant, Tyron Ali. After Kane came into office in 2013, she decided not to prosecute the five Philadelphia Democrats. When a news article reported on her decision, she said that, among other things, the investigation was racially motivated.
After that announcement, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office took the case. Carlson and Cranga testified before a Philadelphia grand jury about their investigation of the politicians. The grand jury ultimately brought charges against the politicians, who were all Democrats.
Carlson and Cranga alleged that Kane and Duecker retaliated against them for their testimony by denying them promotions and selectively releasing emails in the so-called Porngate scandal. Meanwhile, they alleged, Kane and Duecker protected other OAG employees, such as Kane's sister, from public scrutiny over Porngate.
The last of the Ali investigation defendants, state Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, was found guilty on all counts by a Harrisburg jury last month, for taking $4,000 in bribes. The other five defendants pleaded guilty or no contest.
James Kutz of Post & Schell, who represented Carlson and Cranga, did not return a call seeking comment Thursday. Richard Harris of Littler Mendelson, who represented the defendants, also did not return a call seeking comment.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250