PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has severed the civil rights violation claims of 14 former employee plaintiffs against Allegheny County and various County executives, over the County’s institution of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate that resulted in the plaintiffs losing their jobs.
Shane Chesher, Joanne M. King, Andrew Nosbisch, Julia L. Wilner, Thomas Koerbel, Carol Walsh, Dallas Chrestler, Debra Spirko, Jeffrey Simonetti, Karen M. Depkon, Tracy MacAllister, Stacy Poole, Candis Sines-Westerberg, Jason Thornton and Brianna Gabriel initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 22, 2022 versus Allegheny County, Rich Fitzgerald, Laura Zaspel, Jamie Regan, Christopher Cavendish, Nichole Nagle, Ellen Buannic, William McKain, Stephen Pilarski, Patrick Dowd and Does 1-50.
(The plaintiffs later filed two additional amended complaints on Jan. 6 and June 23 of this year, respectively.)
“On Sept. 29, 2021, Allegheny County announced that it was implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all County employees in the executive branch of government. Per the policy, ‘all Allegheny County employees under the Executive branch must have received their second dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine’ on or before Dec. 1, 2021. The policy allowed for exceptions ‘as required by law’ and specified that ‘employees who fail to submit proof of completed vaccination by Dec. 1, 2021 (without approved accommodation) will be subject to termination of employment,” U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Marilyn J. Horan said.
“Allegheny County employed each named plaintiff in various positions and departments throughout the County. The eight different departments employing plaintiffs included the Parks Department, Department of Public Works, Department of Court Records, Department of Human Resources, Health Department, Department of Human Services, Department of Facility Management, and the Kane Ross Nursing Facility. After the policy was implemented, each plaintiff submitted a religious and/or medical exemption request. The County denied every plaintiff’s exemption request citing ‘undue hardship.’ Plaintiffs challenged the County’s exemption denials through various administrative processes through their departments and respective collective bargaining agreements. By Dec. 1, 2021, none of the plaintiffs had received their COVID-19 vaccinations under the policy. As a result, each of the plaintiffs were terminated from their positions in their respective departments at different times and through different procedures.”
Horan explained the defendants argue that the parties and claims should be severed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21, because the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint “improperly joined the individual plaintiffs and their claims and even if joinder is found to be proper, the claims, and parties should be severed to avoid prejudice to defendants and jury confusion.”
In response, the plaintiffs argued that they “properly joined all parties and claims, and that severance is not proper because the defendants responded to all the plaintiffs’ exemption requests in the same way, therefore, their claims are properly joined.”
“Here, the Court acknowledges that the plaintiffs aver similar legal claims against the defendants, but the factual circumstances of each individual plaintiff significantly differ from one another and require independent inquiries to properly evaluate their claims. First, plaintiffs all submitted different religious or medical exemption requests based on their individualized beliefs or medical conditions. Each medical accommodation request is distinct and requires individual proof. Additionally, each plaintiff has different religious beliefs requiring different accommodations which require individual inquiry to properly evaluate the claims. Plaintiffs’ claims therefore do not relate to a common question of fact and joinder was improper under Rule 20,” Horan stated.
“The individuality of each plaintiff’s factual circumstances is particularly relevant to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 religious discrimination claims. The allegations of each plaintiff includes separate and distinct religious beliefs. Assessing each of these requires separate inquiries into the sincerity of any alleged religious belief, the nature of each individual plaintiffs’ job and the reasonableness of any accommodation requested.”
Horan stated that the plaintiffs were “all employed in various jobs within Allegheny County and were members of various organized labor associations that operate under different collective bargaining agreements”, with the plaintiffs “having had jobs in eight different departments within Allegheny County.”
“As a result, individual plaintiffs experienced uncommon interactive processes and individuals when discussing possible religious and/or medical based on their departments. As a result, some plaintiffs allege varying termination proceedings including union arbitrations, pre-termination hearings and post-termination hearings. Further, some plaintiffs aver multiple meetings with different County representatives at different dates and times. Some plaintiffs were terminated promptly on Dec. 2, 2022, while others were terminated at later dates. Properly assessing whether each plaintiffs’ due process rights were violated depends on their individual circumstances. The foregoing variance in procedures makes assessing plaintiffs’ collective procedural due process claims difficult in the aggregate,” Horan stated.
“The different factual circumstances of each individual plaintiff result in uncommon questions of fact as they relate to the legal claims brought. Addressing the same in the same case would likely confuse the jury, impede judicial efficiency, and hinder discovery. Further, the plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by severance because they can each file their own independent cases that will allow for the Court to better explore their claims. As such, joinder is improper under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to sever will be granted. Because the parties and claims will be severed and the parties will be directed to file either amended complaints or separate cases, the Court need not address the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.”
Horan then granted the defendants’ motion to sever parties and claims, directing the secondary, severed plaintiffs to each individually refile their own complaint – and furthermore, that the lead plaintiff, Chesher, is granted leave to file an amended complaint which addresses only his claims.
For counts of violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violating the Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violating the privacy rights outlined in the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution, further violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution and other federal laws, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiffs are seeking the following relief:
• Compensatory damages against defendants, in the amount of $250,000 each for constitutional violations infringing against each individual plaintiff;
• Compensatory damages against County in the amount of $500,000 for each constitutional violations infringing against each individual plaintiff;
• Compensatory damages against defendants for $100,000 for each tort injury against each individual plaintiff;
• Compensatory damages in the recovery of the amount of 1.5 years of annual salary for each individual plaintiff according to their most recent pay scale;
• Compensatory damages pursuant to future lost wages, benefits and potential loss of pension, as the Court deems proper;
• The right to amend this complaint as warranted by further evidence and fact finding that comes through discovery;
• Declaratory relief in the form of changing or creation of policies, practices, customs, and actions of Allegheny County, which protects employees from being retaliated against for exercising constitutionally protected conduct;
• To have assistance of counsel in addition to attorneys for limited and full scope in this instant matter;
• To attempt mediation before adjudicating all matters before summary judgment;
• Any further relief as the court deems proper.
The plaintiffs are representing themselves in this matter.
The defendants are represented by Frances M. Liebenguth of the Allegheny County Law Department, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01822
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com