PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has partially dismissed counts in a disability discrimination suit brought by a real estate company, its owner and his sister-in-law, against Scott Township and one of its commissioners.
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.
The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Aug. 17, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Before that dismissal motion could be decided on, a second amended complaint was filed on Oct. 6. In response, another motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants on Oct. 20.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV found that “sufficient factual matter” had been alleged that the plaintiffs were treated differently in the permitting process, as to Count I.
“Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim against Wells can proceed, as their allegations are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. They have sufficiently alleged disparate treatment and that there was no rational basis for such treatment,” Stickman said.
However, Stickman felt differently with respect to T. Cassidy’s charges of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Count II.
“T. Cassidy has not recited well-pleaded facts that give rise to an inference that he was discriminated against because of his disability. All he has pled is that he was denied timely access to demolition and/or building permits ‘as a direct and proximate result’ of his disability,” Stickman added.
Likewise, Stickman found that H. Cassidy claim of First Amendment retaliation, Count III, was improperly pled with an insufficient familial association of siblings-in-law, not enough to sustain the claim under the law and leading to its dismissal with prejudice.
But, both state court claims of intentional interference with business relationships, Counts IV and V, would remain, according to Stickman.
“The Court finds that plaintiffs have adequately pled the existence of business relationships in Counts IV and V, and that Wells was aware of those relationships. While the facts pled as to how Wells held up the issuance of permits and how he intended to harm plaintiffs’ business relationships are scant, the Court nevertheless holds that what plaintiffs have alleged at the pleading stage is sufficient,” Stickman stated.
Therefore, Stickman permitted the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint for the counts that would be dismissed without prejudice, Counts I and II.
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