PITTSBURGH – A state court judge has overruled preliminary objections from two Pennsylvania school districts, who contended they were only following state law when they denied a work opportunity to a substitute teacher when it was learned by the districts he had been arrested on one occasion 55 years ago.
Anthony Gaglierd of Pittsburgh initially filed suits in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 16 versus Avonworth School District and Northgate School District of Pittsburgh, plus Deer Lakes School District of Cheswick.
“In January of 2020, Mr. Gaglierd applied for an available substitute teacher position in the Avonworth School District through the district’s placement agent, Education Staffing Solutions,” the suit stated.
“On or around March 12, 2020, ESS notified Mr. Gaglierd that Avonworth had denied his application to fill their vacant substitute teacher position. The basis given for this denial was the results of his arrest and conviction record.”
On Feb. 12, 1965, Gaglierd was driving and returned to his home, where his neighbor, an off-duty police officer, objected to the volume level of Gaglierd’s car radio. The neighbor then came to Gaglierd’s home to confront him about the issue, and allegedly accosted the plaintiff’s mother.
“Gaglierd heard the commotion, found the neighbor harassing his mother, told him that if there was an issue, the neighbor should address it with him, and demanded that the neighbor leave their property, as he was trespassing,” the suits said.
“Unbeknownst to Gaglierd, the neighbor happened to be a police officer, who was not on duty, and decided that he was going to arrest Mr. Gaglierd for assaulting a police officer despite the fact that Mr. Gaglierd had not assaulted him and the neighbor was a trespasser.”
The suits explained that during the unwarranted arrest, a pocket knife was found in Gaglierd’s pocket, at which time the neighbor then decided to arrest him on allegations of attempted homicide and concealing a deadly weapon.
“Due to the obvious bogusness of these allegations, no charges were pursued against Gaglierd. Gaglierd was not convicted, did not plead guilty, and there was and never will be any shred of evidence that Gaglierd did any of the things that he was accused of by this neighbor who abused his authority as a police officer,” per the suits.
“When [the districts] received the applications and saw the reference to the incident, an obvious discrepancy existed, as Gaglierd has had decades of educational experience since this incident. However, [the districts] did no investigation into the matter, and summarily dismissed his application.”
The suits said the districts violated the Criminal History Record Information Act through denying Gaglierd’s application, as the prior arrest did not relate to his job duties as a teacher.
“Gaglierd’s prior arrest did not relate to his ability to perform his job duties. He was an excellent teacher prior to the background check with years of experience. Gaglierd’s arrest did not impact his job abilities prior to the background check and they would not impact his abilities after the results of the background check,” the suits said.
“Gaglierd’s arrest was from over 50 years ago and he has not had any other arrests since then. Gaglierd was certainly qualified for the position as he had worked as a teacher and never had any issue maintaining employment in this field.”
Counsel for Northgate School District and Avonworth School District filed preliminary objections to the complaint on Feb. 5 and Deer Lakes School District also did so on March 3, challenging the bases upon which the complaint was filed.
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has yet to rule on whether there is a cause of action for monetary damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Lower Pennsylvania courts considering the issue have suggested that there is no action for monetary damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution,” according to the objections.
“Factors which weigh heavily against the courts creating a private right of action for monetary damages include: a) There is no state statute that already provides for a general right to sue for a constitutional violation; b) A decision to create a cause of action for damages for a constitutional violation, in the first instance, is more appropriate for the legislature; c) The potential financial burden for state, local, and municipal government entities; and d) There exists little legal authority from other states for the creation of a remedy.”
Furthermore, the trio of school districts argued that they were only following state law in conducting background checks, employment history reviews and examining arrest records, when they denied an employment opportunity to the plaintiff.
“Act 24 of 2011 includes an important mechanism to help ensure that current and prospective school employees, independent contractors and student teachers are required to provide assurances they have not been previously arrested or convicted of a Section 111(e) offense,” the objections said.
“Accordingly, under Act 24 of 2011 and Act 82 of 2012, all current and prospective school employees, independent contractors and student teachers are required to complete and return to a designated school administrator a form developed by PDE to report prior arrests or convictions for any offense listed in Section 111(e).”
The district defendants called it “patently illogical” for the plaintiff to suggest that public policy supports an argument that an employee may be awarded monetary damages under CHRIA for considering prior arrest records, when the Pennsylvania Public School Code mandates that prior arrests not only be considered, but be reported.
UPDATE
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay Jr. ordered on April 1 that the preliminary objections were, by and large, overruled. The only one which was not was concerning the demand for punitive damages.
“The defendant’s preliminary objections to punitive damages is sustained by consent of the parties. The remaining preliminary objections are overruled. I find the case of Negron v. School District of Philadelphia, while not binding, to support overruling the preliminary objections,” McVay said.
For counts of violations of the Criminal History Record Information Act and public policy violations, the plaintiff is seeking all damages available at equity and at law in the form of lost wages, front pay, and compensatory damages, which constitute his real and actual damages, punitive damages as allowed by 18 Pa. C.S. Section 9183, court costs, as well as any appropriate attorney’s fees and other costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Prabhu Narahari of Rupert Manes Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Joseph W. Cavrich and Salvatore Bittner of Andrews & Price, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas cases GD-20-012681, GD-20-012683 & GD-20-012684
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com