PITTSBURGH – A federal court in Pittsburgh has dismissed the constitutional lawsuit brought by a Fayette County Prison officer, who claimed he was targeted for a sexual harassment investigation and terminated because his father is the prison’s warden.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge granted a motion to dismiss from Fayette County in a memorandum opinion issued Oct. 13.
“Myers began his employment with Fayette County on Feb. 24, 2019 as a sergeant at the Fayette County Prison. Myers’ father is also employed by Fayette County as the warden of the Fayette County Prison. Myers alleges that throughout his employment at the Fayette County Prison, multiple staff members made frequent negative comment regarding his familial association with his father,” Dodge said.
“In November 2019, Myers was falsely accused of failing to record when officers left their shifts early. Myers believes that this accusation was made in retaliation for his familial association. After an investigation, Fayette County found the accusation against Myers to be false.”
On Feb. 13, Fayette County’s prison board held a special meeting and informed Myers’ father that he was not permitted to be involved in his capacity as warden with any disciple directed to Myers.
After a change in his work schedule on April 30, he was informed that he was being investigated by the prison’s human resources department for charges of sexual harassment.
On May 4, Myers was subjected to a disciplinary hearing, some of which he contends were materially false. Myers says he was never provided with any details regarding the individual who reported the allegations against, including those that he believed were materially false.
“While Myers admitted to some of the other allegations against him, including hugging a female officer, he alleges that the conduct to which he admitted was of the same type and/or kind in which other employees of Fayette County engaged without consequence. Myers was then placed on administrative leave by Fayette County’s prison board pending an investigation,” Dodge said.
Myers was terminated on May 8 at the conclusion of the investigation, and argues he was aware of other employees at Fayette County Prison facing sexual harassment allegations who did not face the punishment – rather, he says he was singled out for investigation and punishment because the warden is his father.
In the complaint filed last June, Myers asserts that the right violated by Fayette County is his First Amendment right to be free from retaliation based on familial association. But Dodge disagreed with this interpretation of constitutional law.
“Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ever held that the relationship between an adult and his or her parents constitutes an ‘intimate relationship’ for First Amendment purposes and the few cases in other courts that have discussed this issue have not supported this conclusion,” according to Dodge.
“Moreover, even the cases that have acknowledged that possibility have dismissed claims on the grounds that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant ‘directly and substantially interefered’ with the relationship.”
Dodge explained that Myers does not demonstrate a protected activity that would implicate any First Amendment right, rather only relying on the association with his father, and added Myers had not shown a viable claim for relief in this matter.
As a result, Dodge granted Fayette County’s Aug. 20 motion to dismiss without prejudice.
“Nevertheless, as explained above, Myers’s complaint suffers from a fundamental flaw. Myers does not identify any support for the proposition that these circumstances create a claim for relief under any theory of First Amendment jurisprudence. He cites no authority to support his contention that the relationship between a father and an adult son constitutes an ‘intimate association for First Amendment purposes, and he does not allege that he engaged in a ‘protected activity’ that would create a claim under the First Amendment,” Dodge concluded.
“While Myers relies on his familial association with his father, the Court is not persuaded in the absence of any supporting authority that the mere existence of this relationship represents a ‘protected.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00900
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com