PARKERSBURG – The former principal of Parkersburg Catholic High School says he was wrongly terminated for reporting complaints about a priest to the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and for not renewing the contract of the school’s football coach.
John Golebiewski filed his complaint in Wood Circuit Court against Parkersburg Catholic Schools Foundation Inc. and Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. The foundation was dismissed from the lawsuit in September by Circuit Judge J.D. Beane.
“It really comes down to the fact that, in West Virginia and most states, there are mandatory reporting laws,” attorney Anthony Brunicardi told The West Virginia Record. “A teacher, a principal, religious entities, anybody who comes forth with allegations of abuse or inappropriate touching. As a mandatory reporter, there needs to be protection for these people who do come forward and suffer the consequences, such as losing their job.
Brunicardi
“There were no performance issues, but they still removed him from his position. It sparked rumors of wrongdoing on the part of the person removed from the school.”
According to the complaint, Golebiewski was hired as principal of PCHS in 2018. The following year, he was named president-principal. He says he had no performance issues or disciplinary actions taken against him.
In October 2018, he says he received a report of inappropriate touching of a student on numerous occasions by Father John Rice. Other students corroborated the story. He reported the misconduct to the Diocese.
In August 2019, Golebiewski says he received further reports of such touching by Father Rice. This report also said Rice asked young children about masturbation and pornography during confession. He again reported the misconduct to the Diocese.
In November 2019, Golebiewski decided not to renew the contract of school football coach Lance Binegar because of two incidents – one was the coach’s failure to report the use of a vaping device on the team bus, and the second was learning the coach had been removed from his previous position at another high school because of sexual misconduct.
In January 2020, Golebiewski attended a meeting at Father Rice’s home with Rice, Superintendent of Catholic Schools Mary Ann Deschaine and Advisory Board President Angela Stuckert to discuss donors’ concerns about his “lack of outreach” to those in the community. He was told he needed to rebuild relationships strained by his decision to get rid of Binegar as football coach.
That was followed by an email from Deschaine asking him to outline his plan to mend those relationships. He submitted that plan in an email February 6.
On February 10, he met again with Rice and Deschaine. He asked if they had reviewed his plan and what he had done to correct the issues, but he was told they hadn’t had a chance to look at it yet. Instead, he says he was given a separation agreement and told to review it.
“When viewed as a whole, it became very clear that the ‘strained community relationships’ referenced by defendants was purely a pretext for the real reason, plaintiff’s continued reporting of Father John Rice’s inappropriate behavior with students,” the complaint states. “The decision to get rid of plaintiff was made before reading the detailed outline that he had made showing all he had done to correct the alleged reason he was ousted.”
Golebiewski claims he was seeks special damages for wage loss as well as damages for emotional distress and embarrassment as well as punitive damages, reinstatement, injunctive relief and other relief.
“The Diocese said these accusations were not credible,” Brunicardi told The Record. “But he simply reported what he was told. He was the principal, and he was obligated to do so. Nowhere did he state he observed this happening. But, the Diocese ends up attacking the credibility of the children who went to teachers and guidance counselors.
“For the Diocese to state these are not credible, they’re saying the children aren’t credible. Had he not reported them, he would have been breaking the law. We don’t know what type of investigation they did, if any, into these claims. They did bring it to the review board.
“This is an employment case, but there’s an importance anytime you’re talking about kids possibly being in harm’s way. Is it troubling? Obviously. There are a lot of Catholic families in the area, and that school is very much in the public eye in Parkersburg. If there are allegations, they need to be brought forward, reported and handled properly.”
Golebiewski is being represented by Brunicardi, Walt Auvil and Kirk Auvil of The Employment Law Center in Parkersburg.
Wood Circuit Court case number 20-C-110
