PHILADELPHIA – A former Philadelphia Police Department officer has alleged he faced unlawful workplace discrimination and retaliation over the course of his tenure, culminating in his termination from the Department.
John Burns of Feasterville filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 30 versus the City of Philadelphia (operating as the “Philadelphia Police Department”).
“Defendant employed plaintiff as a full-time Police Officer 1 from on or about Sept. 10, 2007, through his unlawful termination, discussed herein, on or about June 23, 2023. In total, plaintiff was employed as a Patrolman/Police Officer for nearly 16 years and was a hard-working and dedicated public servant with no history of discipline/performance issues. Plaintiff suffers from numerous serious medical conditions and associated symptoms and complications. By means of illustration only, plaintiff suffers from radiculitis of the lumbar spine, lumbar radiculopathy, sciatica, lower extremity axonal-motor neuropathy, sural and superficial peroneal nerves which result in chronic pain in his back, legs and upper extremities,” the suit says.
“These aforesaid disabilities, at times, substantially limit plaintiff’s ability to perform daily life activities such as managing pain, bending, twisting, lifting, sitting, walking and running. As a result of plaintiff’s aforementioned disabilities, he was placed out of work as a Patrolman between in or about October 2020 through January 2021. Upon returning to work in or about January 2021, defendant assigned plaintiff to light duty at defendant’s Criminal Justice Center. Defendant’s policies and procedures provide that anytime a police officer has medical restrictions, they are universally assigned light or restricted duty, sedentary duty or other roles that can be performed. There are countless examples of other police officers being assigned light duty as it is not only common, but the expected practice and protocol (and required by both defendant’s policies and the Collective Bargaining Agreement in place between defendant and the FOP).”
The suit adds that on or about April 27, 2021, the plaintiff suffered a work-related injury to his neck that exacerbated his aforementioned disabilities – specifically, while working light duty at the Criminal Justice Center, a co-worker and fellow police officer struck the plaintiff in his upper back/lower neck area.
“Due to this injury, and his aforementioned disabilities, plaintiff was placed out of work beginning on or about April 2021 until he was cleared to return to work for light/restricted duty on or about January/February 2023, with a return-to-work date for full duty by August 2023. Plaintiff kept in constant communication with defendant and apprised him of his return-to-work dates and expectation to be cleared for full duty no later than August 2023. Plaintiff returned to work on light duty/restricted status in or about February 2023 and was assigned to the body camera room (a light duty assignment). As aforesaid, officers are universally assigned ‘light duty’ or ‘restricted duty’ roles, and light duty for a police officer is very easy and common to accommodate. Plaintiff performed this role for approximately one week before defendant informed plaintiff that he was being sent home and not permitted to resume work at all because defendant could not locate him or his certifications on the DAR system,” the suit states.
“Plaintiff protested and disputed there were any issues with either his certifications or training and offered to address any actual issues. However, this bogus reasoning was simply pretext to prevent plaintiff from working as defendant promptly began to refuse to communicate with plaintiff thereafter. Defendant intentionally then stonewalled plaintiff’s repeated and numerous attempts to return to work. By way of explanation, plaintiff would make weekly and monthly efforts to communicate with defendant to return to work, but defendant failed to respond in any meaningful way. For example, between February 2023 and May 2023, plaintiff continuously communicated with Jen Bryan, who was the Captain’s Aide, about his return to work. Bryan provided no answers to plaintiff and kept relaying obviously obstructive reasons as to why plaintiff could not come back to work (i.e. one of his doctor’s notes was unacceptable because it was not the ‘original’). Plaintiff was also going monthly to defendant’s Medical Unit as required with his current medical information.”
On May 18, 2023, the plaintiff claims he emailed the defendant’s HR Manager Heather McCaffrey and explained that he “had reached out to your office numerous times in regard to this matter, and was told I would receive a call back and I did not at all.” The plaintiff adds he called McCaffrey nearly 30 times, but McCaffrey and the defendant’s other managers were non-responsive and ignored the plaintiff, constituting “no interactive accommodation process whatsoever.”
“On or about May 18, 2023, after being continually ignored and growing frustrated, plaintiff also submitted a memorandum to John Stanford, defendant’s Deputy Police Commissioner seeking to return to work on light/restricted duty and notifying the Deputy Police Commissioner that his restrictions would ‘expire on Aug. 16, 2023.’ Plaintiff received no response to his memorandum, but shortly thereafter, on or about July 3, 2023, defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment via a nonsensical letter stating that he had been terminated June 23, 2023, for ‘abandoning’ his position (which was utterly and disgustingly false),” the suit says.
“Plaintiff was not: (1) permitted to continue working light duty or restricted duty from January – August of 2023; (2) given any interactive dialogue or process about accommodations; (2) given his entitlement of restricted or light duty for a period of 6 months, subject to an extension per policies; (3) given any of hundreds of potential light or restricted-duty roles; (4) talked to about circumstances of his continued employment prior to termination for alleged job abandonment; (5) accommodated in any manner despite many reasonable available accommodations; or (6) permitted to resume full duty despite expecting to be cleared for full duty as of August of 2023. These actions constitute unlawful discrimination and retaliation by defendant.”
For one count of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the plaintiff is seeking:
• Injunctive relief from the defendant continuing to maintain its illegal policy, practice or custom of discriminating/retaliating against employees and are to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such unlawful acts and to adhere thereto;
• Past lost earnings, future lost earnings, salary, pay increases, bonuses, medical and other benefits, training, promotions, pension and seniority, with those benefits having been illegally withheld from the date he first suffered discrimination at the hands of defendant, until the date of verdict;
• Punitive damages, as permitted by applicable law(s) alleged asserted herein, in an amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish defendant for its willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter defendant or other employers from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
• Any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper and appropriate, including for emotional distress;
• Costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• A verdict in favor of plaintiff to be molded by the Court to maximize the financial recovery available to the plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal law; and
• A trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Ari Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01822
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com