PITTSBURGH – A local coffee house owner argues his lawsuit against a Pittsburgh news station for broadcasting a story in which he was accused of sexual harassment by former employees should not be transferred to Allegheny County’s complex litigation center.
Joseph Davis first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on June 23 versus Pittsburgh Community Broadcasting Company, also of Pittsburgh.
The litigation stated on Aug. 2, 2019, a story was published on the website for WESA-FM in Pittsburgh titled, “Former employees accuse coffeehouse owner of sexual harassment”, which the plaintiff says discusses false accusations of sexual misconduct made against him by individuals formerly on the staff at his coffeehouse, Biddle’s Escape.
“The article notes that it tried to reach the plaintiff multiple times for a comment, but in fact, the defendant had only reached out to the plaintiff once, and had failed to answer plaintiff’s attempts to reach out to the defendant for a comment,” the lawsuit stated.
“Said article was blatantly reporting false accusations and with a proper investigation would not have reported such accusations. Upon publication of this article, the false allegations regarding the plaintiff spread throughout the community.”
The article was shared on a local sub-page of the Reddit website, where site users posted comments encouraging others to no longer patronize the plaintiff’s business. As a result, Davis says he lost between $10,000 and $15,000 in revenue per month since the article’s publication, in addition to suffering mental anguish, emotional distress and public humiliation.
Counsel for WESA filed to send the case to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas’s Commerce and Complex Litigation Center on Aug. 10.
“Davis’s claims raise significant constitutional and legal issues involving a news report of immense public concern. As the report explains, sexual harassment presents a prevalent problem in the hospitality industry, particularly in small restaurants,” the motion stated.
“Prior to WESA’s report, Biddle’s itself had been the subject of public criticism and protest in connection with Davis’s alleged sexual harassment of his employees. WESA’s report is protected by the First Amendment. In defending against Davis’s claims, WESA intends to invoke an array of constitutional protections. Those protections will require the Court’s close scrutiny.”
Counsel for WESA said the suit is based on reporting disputes involving Davis’s employees and their claims of harassment, and that this Court recognizes that employer-employee disputes qualify as commercial litigation and should be assigned to the Commerce and Commercial Litigation Center.
WESA’s attorneys added that since the case will likely “require the expenditure of a substantial amount of judicial resources”, it will “benefit significantly from consistent management by one judge who would maintain familiarity with the issues and subjects of discovery.”
UPDATE
Davis filed a reply on Sept. 1, objecting to the proposed transfer of the case.
“The present matter does not meet a single factor in the determination of Complex Litigation. This matter is a two-party lawsuit with routine motions anticipated. Moreover, matters involving claims asserting defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress have effectively been handled by this Honorable Court via the General Docket in the past,” counsel for the plaintiff said.
“It is unclear why the matter would need multiple judges, and the amount in controversy is not close to what the Center typically handles. Additionally, considering the challenges this Honorable Court currently faces with the pandemic it is not necessary for this matter to be classified as complex as the use of additional judicial resources are contrary to judicial economy.”
In replying to the defendant’s preliminary objections on Sept. 8, counsel for Davis denied the objections in their entirety.
“Objections under Rule 1028(a)(3) fail because the plaintiff’s complaint has been clearly pleaded with specificity. Additionally, defendant’s preliminary objection under Rule 1028(a)(4) fail due to the reliance on an impermissible speaking demurrer and the fact that the plaintiff has pleaded all of the required elements for all three of the causes of action asserted in his complaint,” per the objections response.
For counts of defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000 to be determined at trial, punitive damages and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Ryan D. Very, Stephen R. Matvey and Russell K. Turner of Very Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Michael Berry of Ballard Spahr, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007030
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com