PITTSBURGH – The Borough of Mount Pleasant denies it wrongfully terminated its former police chief after his pursuit to correct alleged waste and wrongdoing being committed by municipal government.
Douglas Sam of Mount Pleasant first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 16 versus The Borough of Mount Pleasant.
Sam became Mount Pleasant Police Chief on March 2, 2015, after being commended for his strong military background, leadership skills, experience and numerous certifications.
“Under Sam’s guidance as police chief, the following were accomplished: Revamping and modernization of the police department’s paperwork and recordkeeping processes to bring the police department in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations; Ensuring that staffing of police officers was maintained at adequate levels; Organizing and conducting training for the Mount Pleasant Police Department officers, which included firearms training, active shooter training, defensive tactics, taser training and establishment of an emergency alert system,” the suit stated, in part.
“Despite the improvements and updates listed above, Sam’s continued employment as police chief was conditioned on the state of his personal relationships with members of the Mount Pleasant government. Sam’s personal relationships with these individuals, however, appeared to be tied to their need for Sam to ignore waste and wrongdoing by Mount Pleasant.”
Sam explained that he was chastised for investigating alleged duplicate depositing of paychecks by Councilwoman Cynthia Stevenson and referring the matter to the Pennsylvania State Police – in addition to other matters of governmental waste – and refusing to drop DUI charges against a John Doe suspect (who allegedly had connection to Mount Pleasant’s government), who was arrested for driving under the influence on Aug. 31, 2018.
After a process of negotiating terms and conditions, including salary, related to an employment contract he was offered for the position of police chief, Sam said he was fired by the mayor and borough council on Feb. 4, 2019.
Sam added this retaliation measure was due to his investigation of borough wrongdoing during his tenure as police chief.
UPDATE
Counsel for Mount Pleasant filed an answer to the case with new matter on Nov. 24, denying that it engaged in the alleged waste or wrongdoing, and explained the councilwoman rectified her inadvertent mistake concerning her paycheck.
“Councilwoman Stevenson informed the Borough Secretary that she did not receive her paycheck and requested that it be reissued. She was reissued another paycheck and in error, deposited both checks from the Borough by accident. Councilwoman Stevenson rectified this by refunding the Borough the money from one of the checks,” the answer stated, in part.
“It is admitted that Councilwoman Stevenson questioned plaintiff about his handling of the issue. Defendant additionally objects to the use of ‘impropriety’ as Councilwoman Stevenson made an inadvertent mistake and rectified the same by paying the Borough back the overpaid funds.”
The Borough further denied that it pressured Sam to drop charges against the individual arrested for DUI, denied that it wrongfully terminated Sam and added it had given positive references for new employment since his departure.
In new matter, the Borough asserted numerous affirmative defenses.
“Defendant is entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and invokes all applicable immunity defenses. Plaintiff fails to plead facts that establish a causal connection between any report of wrongdoing and the alleged retaliatory action, and cannot establish a prima facie case as a matter of law,” the answer stated.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant’s actions were justified. Plaintiff fails to plead ‘substantial’ waste in accordance with the Whistleblower law, and plaintiff did not act in good faith in reporting waste or wrongdoing. Plaintiff fails to show that defendant knew of his alleged report relating to wrongdoing.”
The Borough argued Sam has failed to allege a retaliatory motive on the part of Mount Pleasant, that the decision to terminate his employment was amply justified by factors having nothing to do with any reports he might have made alleging ‘waste’ or ‘wrongdoing’, and that the Borough “reserves the right to prove that the termination of plaintiff’s employment was justified based on after-discovered evidence, which may emerge during the course of discovery.”
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law through retaliation, the plaintiff is seeking a finding that Mount Pleasant violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, back pay, front pay, lost benefits and other emoluments of employment and such other relief as is necessary to make him whole, compensatory damages for pain, humiliation, emotional distress and damage to reputation; punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, any other relief to which he is entitled and/or which this Court deems necessary and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Sammy Sugiura and Amy N. Williamson of Edgar Snyder & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Scott G. Dunlop and Morgan M.J. Randle of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-010871
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com