PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has dismissed a count for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Scott Township from a disability discrimination suit brought by a real estate company, its owner and his sister-in-law, versus the 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, 2020 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.
UPDATE
After U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV then dismissed certain counts without prejudice and the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Feb. 16, the defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the ADA count on March 2.
In an April 26 memorandum order, Stickman ruled to dismiss the ADA count for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“Congress enacted the ADA to eliminate discrimination based on disability. But the ADA does not cover every instance of such discrimination. Rather, it covers such discrimination in at least three situations, each of which is assigned its own ‘title’ or subsection of the ADA statute. Title II, which T. Cassidy alleges was violated, prohibits discrimination by a ‘public entity.’ It ‘addresses discrimination by governmental entities in the operation of public services, programs, and activities, including transportation,” Stickman said.
“To successfully state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a person must demonstrate: (1) He is a qualified individual; (2) With a disability; (3) Who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or was subjected to discrimination by any such entity; (4) By reason of his disability.”
Stickman continued that though the plaintiffs have amended their complaint three times, the Court found that T. Cassidy still failed to plead any act of discrimination within the meaning of the ADA – that is to say while T. Cassidy alleged that he suffered from a disability and that Scott Township is a public entity, he failed to convince the Court that he was discriminated against because of his disability.
“In order to state a valid cause of action, T. Cassidy must provide some factual grounds for relief which ‘requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. All T. Cassidy has pled is that he was subjected to unwarranted notice of code violations, denied timely access to demolition and/or building permits ‘as a direct and proximate result’ of his disability, and that he was ‘subject to actual permit denials,” Stickman said.
“Quite simply, he has failed to provide any factual allegations that these alleged events by Scott Township were the result of discrimination against him because of his disability. T. Cassidy’s claim against Scott Township fails to meet the threshold requirements for pleading an ADA claim. Therefore, Count II will be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Scott Township is hereby terminated as a party in this case.”
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 Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00744
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com