Lawyers for the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire District are asking a federal judge to toss out a judgment against them of more than $500,000 for wrongfully dismissing a firefighter who organized a labor union, alleging he destroyed evidence that would have hurt his case.

Fireman Paul Blangsted was fired in April 2004 after he vandalized a racquetball sign at the Snowmass Club and, according to his superiors, lied about it during the ensuing investigation. Blangsted argued, and a federal jury agreed, that his firing was in fact a result of him organizing a chapter of the International Association of Fire Fighters labor union in Snowmass.

In July, the jury found that the fire district violated Blangsted’s First Amendment right to free assembly by dismissing him for organizing a union. They awarded him $572,145 in back pay and punitive damages, plus $10,000 directly from former Snowmass-Wildcat fire chief William Cowan. The jury also called for Blangsted to be reinstated to the department.

A new motion from the fire department’s defense team claims Blangsted misrepresented the circumstances of his ouster and destroyed a recording of the April 2004 meeting in which he was fired. They claim that Blangsted falsely testified that he was fired at the meeting without being allowed to defend himself or speak, and that he secretly taped the meeting but erased it because it could weaken his case against them.

Former fire chief Cowan and assistant chief John Mele testified that “there was a long pause at the beginning of the meeting while they waited for [Blangsted] to admit his involvement in the incident at the Snowmass Club,” according to court documents. Blangsted testified that no such pause occurred.

The department also claims Blangsted did not disclose he had recorded the meeting when asked before the trial.

By trashing the tape, the department’s attorneys claim Blangsted “intentionally destroyed evidence that was relevant to a hotly contested issue in the case.”

“The law does not look kindly on litigants such as [Blangsted] who destroy relevant evidence … the proper remedy is to dismiss [Blangsted’s] case against the Defendants with prejudice. At a minimum, the Court should award Defendants a new trial so that the case can be retried with a curative jury instruction.”

If they knew the tape existed, and that Blangsted threw it out, the department’s lawyers argue that they would have instructed the jury that Blangsted likely threw away the tape because it may have been unfavorable to his case.

The department’s lawyer, Nikolai N. Frant, argues in a legal brief that precedent mandates individuals preserve evidence “if he knows or should know that litigation is imminent.

Further, he argues that Blangsted had already filed a written complaint about his firing and attended a hearing on it with the department at the time he threw away the tape. This “spoilation of evidence,” he argues, warrants a dismissal of the judgment against the department or a new trial.

The department has separately motioned for a new trial saying the $500,000-plus judgment is “grossly excessive and should not be permitted to stand.”

They are also challenging the jury’s order of reinstatement, claiming the standard of training for Snowmass firefighters has risen since 2004 and that Blangsted is no longer qualified to serve in the district.
andrew@aspendailynews.com