Mar. 6—A former Scranton School District maintenance manager cleared of charges he endangered children cannot seek damages for alleged violations of his rights because prosecutors have absolute immunity, an attorney for the state attorney general's office says in court papers.

Joseph Slack, of Scranton, filed a federal lawsuit last year against the office, state police and several employees of both organizations, alleging he was charged despite clear evidence that he took action to shut down water fountains after learning lead levels exceeded federal standards.

Slack was arrested Sept. 30, 2020, along with former Superintendent Alexis Kirijan, Ed.D. and former Chief Operating Officer Jeff Brazil, based on a statewide grand jury investigation into asbestos and lead issues at multiple schools.

The trio were accused of endangering children and the public for allegedly failing to act to address the issues. Less than a year later, all charges against Slack and Brazil were dropped. Kirijan was admitted into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program on one count of recklessly endangering another person.

The lawsuit seeks damages on five counts, including false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Nicole R. DiTomo recently filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing investigators and attorneys acted within their official duties. By law, that protects them from liability unless a defendant can show they perjured themselves or acted fraudulently in presenting evidence to a grand jury.

"Slack is clearly in disagreement with the evidence obtained in the investigation ... but (he) has not and cannot present factual contentions which demonstrate or infer that the named defendants worked fraudulently, committed perjury or sought the recommendation of the grand jury through other corrupt means," DiTomo says in the motion.

In a reply to the motion, Slack's attorney, Vincent S. Cimini, argues immunity does not apply because the violation of his rights stems from investigators' and prosecutors' conduct in investigating the case before and after charges were filed.

Slack contends investigators knew there was insufficient evidence to support the charges, noting he showed them proof he had placed signs that said "do not drink or cook with" on the affected water fountains immediately after he was advised of the problem.

"Defendants intentionally disregarded Mr. Slack's clear and fundamental rights," Cimini says in the reply. "Absolute prosecutorial immunity was never intended to shield such conduct."

A federal judge will review the findings and rule at a later date.

Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9137; @tmbeseckerTT on Twitter.