PITTSBURGH – Counsel for Scott Township and one of its commissioners allege that “vague and illusory” claims from a Western Pennsylvania real estate company, its owner and his sister-in-law should be grounds to dismiss a disability discrimination lawsuit filed against them.
Cassidy Brothers Real Estate Development Company, Terrance L. Cassidy Sr. and Helen Cassidy of Allegheny County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 20, versus Scott Township and its Commissioner William Wells.
Plaintiff Terrance Cassidy is a permanently disabled individual due to injuries he has sustained including, but not limited to, a spinal cord injury who has allegedly suffered ongoing harassment for the past nine years, the suit said.
Terrance claimed for no apparent reason, he was singled out to receive “excessive and unnecessary notices of code violations from defendant Township regarding a property that was part of his parent’s estate and located in Defendant Township, which he purchased in or about 2017.”
“Despite defendant Wells’ actual knowledge of plaintiff Terrance’s disability, defendant Wells has made statements to individuals in the community on multiple occasions that plaintiff T. Cassidy is not disabled. These statements were, and are, materially false,” according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Wells has also communicated his animosity toward plaintiff T. Cassidy and/or plaintiff T. Cassidy’s disability to multiple members of the community, including, but not limited to, making statements such he “wishes [plaintiff T. Cassidy] would die.”
In or about May of 2018, the residence located on plaintiff Helen Cassidy and her husband Patrick Cassidy’s property in Scott Township was destroyed due to a fire. Patrick is Terrance’s brother.
Shortly thereafter, Helen and Patrick contracted the plaintiff company to demolish the remaining structure and build their home on this property. Terrance then applied for a permit with Scott Township to demolish the remaining structure on his brother and sister-in-law’s property.
However, Scott Township did not issue a permit to demolish the structure for approximately four to six weeks, while other individuals applying for similar demolition permits were allegedly granted them in a far shorter time period. The plaintiffs allege that Terrance’s disability was the reason for the disparate treatment.
That was followed by Terrance applying for a permit with Scott Township to construct a new home on Helen and Patrick Cassidy’s property and presented insurance information to the defendants for said work.
“At or around this time, the plaintiff company entered into several business relationships involving the build on the property, including, but not limited to, contracting agreements with Christian Miele to perform electrical work on the property and Frank Hutchison to install the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system,” the suit said.
“Shortly thereafter, defendant Wells made false allegations to defendant Township’s manager that Terrance Cassidy as an individual, and not defendant company, was executing the build on Helen and Patrick’s property and that Terrance did not have the proper insurance for the demolition and/or building. These allegations were, and are, materially false.”
Terrance said he was required to sign a contract outlining the timeline for the build in August 2018, something other applicants were not required to do, and the permit wasn’t issued until the following month. In the process, the plaintiffs suffered significant financial losses.
After Patrick’s death in November 2018, defendant Township allegedly began citing Helen for an unsafe structure on her property in May 2019, a structure which the suit said is non-existent.
“Terrance Cassidy appeared in magistrate court approximately nine times from May to October of 2019 as a direct and proximate result of the letters and/or citations issued to Helen Cassidy for the non-existent structure on her property. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of defendant Township and/or defendant Wells, plaintiffs have suffered significant financial loss and emotional distress,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Aug. 17, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“At Count II, plaintiff Terrance Cassidy brings an Americans with Disabilities Act Title II claim alleging that defendants denied him access to demolition and building permits for a significant amount of time as a result of his disability. Terrance seeks relief in the form of punitive damages against Wells, economic damages, general and compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs,” the motion stated.
“Defendant Wells is not subject to individual liability under the ADA theory pled at Count II, nor can punitive damages be awarded against him. For these reasons, Count II should be dismissed as to Wells, and any punitive damages claim stricken.”
The defendants also discounted Count III, the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for retaliation against Terrance’s 1st Amendment rights, through familial association with Helen, as the Third Circuit has not recognized this connections as basis for such a claim.
“Helen does not set forth any claim for, let alone any specifics relating to, interference in her relationship with Terrance at Count III, and thus this claim fails as a matter of law,” the motion says.
“Counts IV and V, Pennsylvania common law intentional interference with a business relationship, fail…as the amended complaint is bereft as to any specifics regarding business contracts that were purportedly interfered with, as well as any knowledge of defendant Wells of the same. The remaining causes of action brought by plaintiffs, thus, are equal protection based on a class of one theory at Count I, and an ADA claim against the Township at Count II, which both fail as defendants are not put on notice of what specifically plaintiffs are claiming.”
As to each of the counts, the motion says that both Helen and the corporate plaintiff “provide virtually no information about the specific code violations/citations that they contend are at issue in this case.”
“Not a single citation or enforcement notice is attached to the complaint, such that defendants are unable to identify what citations are at issue, when these occurred, or what plaintiffs contend was inappropriate about them,” the motion says.
The motion also states Wells was shielded from all the charges against him by qualified immunity.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Office of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Scott G. Dunlop and Morgan M.J. Randle of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00744
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com