PITTSBURGH – Mount Pleasant’s former police chief says the Borough’s motion for summary judgment seeking to throw out his wrongful termination case, is ill-supported and its substance has no connection to the events that the complaint addresses.
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.
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.
Per a motion filing on April 26, the Borough is seeking summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act has expired, under the applicable 180-day statute of limitations.
“On Feb. 4, 2019, Borough Council voted in favor of a motion to terminate plaintiff’s employment. Following the vote, plaintiff was issued a letter dated Feb. 5, 2019 stating that his termination was effective that morning. Plaintiff concedes in his answers to interrogatories that his final day of employment with the defendant was Feb. 5, 2019,” the motion stated.
“The statute of limitations for Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims is 180 days, such a civil action must be commenced within 180 days of the alleged retaliatory action. Defendant Mount Pleasant Borough now moves for summary judgment on the basis of the expiration of the 180-day statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff’s single Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claim. Therefore, this Honorable Court is requested to enter judgment in favor of the defendant pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Sam filed a brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion on May 26, arguing that the Borough miscalculated in its determination that the plaintiff’s whistleblower claim was beyond the statute of limitations, among other things.
“Defendant fails to acknowledge that plaintiff timely filed his Whistleblower Claim on Aug. 5, 2019. Instead, defendant attempts to mislead this Honorable Court by misrepresenting that ‘plaintiff initiated the instant action by filing a complaint on Oct. 16, 2020,” the plaintiff’s brief says.
“Although plaintiff did file a complaint (before this Honorable Court) on October 16, 2020, said complaint was by no means the vehicle which initiated plaintiff’s pending Whistleblower Claim. To the contrary, Sam filed two previous complaints alleging the same Whistleblower Claim on Aug. 5, 2019 and Nov. 15, 2019. Therefore, Sam’s Whistleblower Claim was timely filed, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be dismissed as a matter of law.”
Additionally, the plaintiff says the improper calculation is not based on a totality of the facts at issue.
“In the alternative, defendant’s ‘mathematical’ conclusion that the record clearly demonstrates that Sam’s Whistleblower Claim is time barred is premature at best. At worst, it is wholly based on suppositions, assumptions, and a fraction of the relevant facts,” the brief stated.
“As stated above, discovery in this case is incomplete. To date, the defendant has failed to provide any written discovery responses, let alone in a timely manner. Moreover, the defendant has not noticed Sam’s deposition or any other depositions for that matter.”
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