PITTSBURGH – A state court judge has granted a protective motion for confidentiality in the case of a substitute teacher who sued Deer Lakes School District, after the District learned he was once arrested in 1956 and allegedly denied him work in its schools.
Anthony Gaglierd of Pittsburgh initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 16 versus Deer Lakes School District of Cheswick.
(Gaglierd also filed identical litigation the same day against Avonworth School District and Northgate School District, both of Pittsburgh.)
“In January of 2020, Mr. Gaglierd applied for an available substitute teacher position in the Deer Lakes 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 Deer Lakes 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.”
Deer Lakes School District filed an answer and new matter in the case on June 25, countering that it was not a criminal justice agency and thus, could not be bound by the tenets of the CHRIA.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s alleged injury, suffering and damages are the result of his own actions and not due to any unlawful action of the School District. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not confer a private cause of action for monetary relief. The School District is immune from plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and invokes all immunities and defenses available to it pursuant to the Act,” the new matter stated, in part.
“The School District at no time received any application for employment from the Plaintiff. The School District at all times acted lawfully and with a good faith belief that its actions were in conformance with Pennsylvania law. The School District at all times acted with legitimate and lawful reasons relative to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had no property right in his application or any subsequent for employment with the School District. Plaintiff has sustained no damages as a result of the School District’s actions.”
The School District avers that at no time did it disseminate the plaintiff’s criminal history record to any individual or agency and at no time violated any provision of CHRIA.
UPDATE
Counsel for the District motioned to the presiding judge on Oct. 6 that the nature of certain materials being exchanged in the discovery process called for a protective order to maintain and protect confidentiality of those documents.
“The parties are currently exchanging discovery in this civil action. Certain information requested in discovery of this action is confidential in nature and the parties jointly request that this Honorable Court enter a protective order with respect to the production and handling of confidential information in this case,” according to defense counsel.
“A copy of the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order regarding discovery and documents labeled ‘Confidential’ is attached hereto. It is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court approve and enter the attached stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order regarding discovery and documents labeled ‘Confidential.”
Two days later, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Philip A. Ignelzi granted the defense’s motion.
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 defendant is represented by Teresa O. Sirianni of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas cases GD-20-012683
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com