PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia and several other defendants have been dismissed from a civil rights violation case filed by a Black, Muslim contractor, who claimed he was first framed for materials theft by a racist employee and then arrested by members of the Philadelphia Police Department.
Kareem Rice of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 30, 2020, versus the Philadelphia Police Department, Officers Melissa O’Leary, Michael Sowell and Jonathan Dedos, Det. Sharon Murphy, Det. John Frei, Sgt. Steven Vanor, all of Philadelphia, plus A.T. Chadwick Company, Inc., A.T. Chadwick Family Limited Partnership, A.T. Chadwick LLC, Jimmy Kratz, Richard Lipinski, Fran Spause, Thomas Walls and Vincent Fitzgerald, all of Bensalem.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 22, 2020.
Rice said he was one of two African-American employees working on a project for A.T. Chadwick Company and since the beginning of the project on Dec. 4, 2017, the plaintiff’s foreman and defendant Kratz had given his employees permission to discard metal that was not being used as it would otherwise be put in the trash.
“Upon information and belief, Kratz, who is white, disliked plaintiff and had told other employees that he wanted to get rid of him. On or around the week of Feb. 12, 2018, Kratz made a phone call to defendant Walls, Project Manager, and advised him that copper was missing from a storage area where copper piping was kept. Kratz advised Walls that he would set up a camera in the storage room where the copper was kept,” the suit stated.
“On or about Feb. 16, 2018, Kratz had cameras set up in the storage room. Kratz told plaintiff and the only other black employee on the project that they could go into the storage area and take any scrap metal from there. Plaintiff and the other employee were then caught on video taking metal from the storage room.”
When he reported for work on Monday, Feb. 19, 2018, Rice was questioned by foreman and defendant Lipinski as to whether he had taken copper piping. Rice said he did, after being given permission to do so by Kratz.
However, Rice and his fellow African-American co-worker then learned they were fired and led off the property, while the supposed theft was reported to the Philadelphia Police Department, the lawsuit said.
In the investigative interview with officers, defendant Lipinski told defendant Murphy that Rice had taken materials from the job site without adding that he had been given permission to do so by Kratz, the lawsuit said.
Rice learned in March 2018 that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest relating to the supposed theft, so he turned himself into police and was released on bail. On Jan. 23, 2019, Rice was acquitted of all charges against him.
Rice believed he was set up by Kratz because of his race and the police defendants knew there was no probable cause to arrest him and did so regardless, while his career and livelihood has been negatively impacted due to the arrest.
On May 28, 2020, the Philadelphia Police Department defendants, through their counsel, filed a motion to dismiss Rice’s complaint for failure to state a claim, via insufficient specificity.
The A.T. Chadwick Company filed its own motion to dismiss the complaint on July 17, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because the company defendants are not state actors, they argued they could not be charged with violating an individual’s rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Petrese B. Tucker ruled to dismiss all claims against the City defendants with prejudice, dismiss all counts against the Chadwick Corp. defendants with prejudice; dismiss Count I against the Project Management defendants with prejudice and dismiss Counts II and III against the Project Management defendants without prejudice.
Rice will now have 30 days to correct the deficiencies in an amended complaint.
“Plaintiff has filed two complaints to this Court claiming that he experienced unlawful racial discrimination during his work as a contractor. However, even when both complaints are viewed in the most favorable light, major deficiencies remain. It appears that in an effort to hold accountable any and all persons or entities even tangentially related to the incidents described above, plaintiff’s claims have turned into a tangled knot – ranging from outlandish to plausible, but procedurally flawed,” Tucker said.
Tucker continued that the flaws in Rice’s case were fatal to most of the defendants, and resulted in dismissal of most of its counts.
“The deficiencies in plaintiff’s claims against the entities and individuals that comprise the City defendants cannot be cured. The unexplained absence of the City defendants as defined parties in the amended complaint makes this court strongly inclined to dismiss all counts against the City defendants on those grounds alone. Nonetheless, plaintiff has not pled facts that support a cause of action against the City defendants,” Tucker said.
“Plaintiff [also] relies heavily on the fact that the company installed security cameras – at the direction of Kratz – as a clear link that all of the Chadwick Corp. defendants (and Driscoll representatives) were engaged in discriminatory behavior. Yet, even in his averments, plaintiff fails to indicate whether Walls or others had knowledge that the installation was meant to discriminatorily trap plaintiff or any other racial minorities. Further, it is not clear from the pleadings that Walls or anyone else gave Kratz permission to allow employees of any race to take copper or install the surveillance equipment.”
“Plaintiff relies heavily on inference when it comes to his claims of racial discrimination by the Project Management defendants other than Kratz. Indeed, plaintiff encourages the court to take liberties in assuming the intent of many the individuals. Plaintiff includes factual details that various Driscoll and Chadwick employees were told by Kratz that theft was occurring on the project site and that their actions related to this knowledge demonstrate their intent to discriminate against plaintiff because of his race. The Court disagrees.”
For counts of malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment and civil rights violations under Monell, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $75,000, plus statutory damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs and equitable relief.
The plaintiff is represented by David A. Berlin and Matthew B. Weisberg of Weisberg Law in Morton and Gary Schafkopf of Hopkins Schafkopf, in Bala Cynwyd.
Defendants Kratz, Lipinski, Spause and Fitzgerald are represented by Caroline J. Berdzik of Goldberg Segalla, in Princeton, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02404
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com