PITTSBURGH – A state court judge has transferred a case between a local coffee house owner who says he was falsely accused of sexual harassment by former employees and a Pittsburgh news station who reported on the story, 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 said 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 said 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’ 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.
“Davis’s claims center on WESA’s reporting about various disputes with his employees, including one who filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Thus, in many respects, this case will mirror an employer-employee dispute. It will involve many of the same issues that arise in traditional employment disputes, but will be even more complicated, given the constitutional and legal protections afforded to the press who report on those disputes,” according to the motion.
Furthermore, if this case proceeds to discovery, the defense stated, it will involve “complex factual issues” since the sexual harassment discussed in the report took place over several years and involved a number of employees.
“This case will in all likelihood require the involvement of more than one judge, and the Court’s resources will be more efficiently expended by assigning this case to a single judge. The parties are likely to engage in significant motion practice, including WESA’s forthcoming preliminary objections and, if the case proceeds to discovery, discovery motions and, ultimately, a summary judgment motion by WESA raising constitutional and common-law issues,” per the motion.
“Moreover, the nature of the report giving rise to Davis’s claims implicates the interests of the women who worked for Davis and contend that he engaged in sexual misconduct, which is likely to raise additional, sensitive issues. Given the complexity of the underlying facts and the nuanced law governing Davis’s claims, this case will be difficult to resolve efficiently by multiple judges. Indeed, the legal issues are of constitutional importance and thus warrant close, focused attention by a single judge.”
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
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christine A. Ward ordered the case sent to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center on Sept. 16.
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