PHILADELPHIA – A former employee for East Bradford Township’s Public Works Department has responded to his former supervisor’s argument attempting to invalidate his retaliation and civil rights claims, by asserting a deposition he gave was protected speech and yet faced professional reprisal for it nonetheless.
Michael Geraghty of West Chester initially filed suit in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 28 versus East Bradford Township and Mandie Cawley Cantlin, also of West Chester, plus John Carroll, of South Coatesville.
(The suit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 27.)
“Plaintiff’s day-to-day duties included, among other things, and as relevant to this case, inspection and removal of decayed, dangerous and/or downed trees which could, or, in fact, fell down within the highways and rights of way of the defendant, East Bradford Township,” the suit said.
“Although plaintiff and others working for the Public Works Department, under the direction of defendant John Carroll, would reasonably see, observe and otherwise be in a position to place the defendant Township on notice of decaying or dangerous tree limbs within the Township, it was Township policy, specifically per the Director of Public Works, for plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees to neither ‘see’ or report on dangerous conditions involving trees within the Township.”
Geraghty said he and others in the department were instructed to “put blinders on” with respect to dangerous trees which they observed while driving throughout the highways owned by defendant Township.
In May 2016, the plaintiff said he was working on a road crew to remove a fallen tree limb partially blocking a local road – also during a period of time in which he was living with Melanie Harlan, whose tree company, Harlan Tree Services, Inc., served as the on-call tree services company for the defendant.
“In May 2016, plaintiff, while on a downed tree event in East Bradford Township and in the presence of Melanie Harlan and plaintiff’s direct supervisor, defendant John Carroll, plaintiff and Carroll were informed by Harlan that a couple of trees slightly down the street from the one they were attending to, were decayed and a potential risk for their large limbs falling onto the roadway below. Harlan was prepared, while in the general vicinity, to remove those decayed tree limbs, but was instructed by defendant Carroll not to,” the suit stated.
“Despite being put on actual notice by Harlan of the imminent danger of the tree limbs nearby, defendant Carroll concluded to do nothing and allow the limbs to remain in place. Thereafter, on Dec. 25, 2016, an individual named Eric Blevins was driving his truck along the same stretch of roadway and the tree limbs, which were decayed as pointed out to defendant Carroll, came crashing down onto the Blevins vehicle and seriously injured Blevins. Plaintiff immediately became aware that these were the same tree limbs that Harlan, his then live-in girlfriend, had pointed out to defendant Carroll as requiring removal so as to avoid the very incident that, in fact, occurred.”
Geraghty alleged that Carroll immediately began crafting a strategy to deflect liability away from himself and the Township, claiming that the Public Works Department did not have notice of the decaying or dangerous tree limbs and denied the conversation with Harlan had taken place.
When Blevins sued the Township, Geraghty claimed that Carroll put continuous pressure on him to “know nothing” regarding the prior notice relating to the dangerous tree limbs, up to and after Geraghty provided deposition testimony in the Blevins lawsuit, and created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff.
Geraghty also said defendant Cantlin allowed this to occur, which led to his constructive termination from the Township, emotional distress and the end of his relationship with Harlan.
On Nov. 3, Carroll filed a motion to dismiss Geraghty’s complaint for failure to state any claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Assuming arguendo, plaintiff brings Count I and Count II against moving defendant, plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts that would allow the Court to infer that moving defendant, as a municipal employee, may be individually liable for any of the misconduct alleged,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“While Count I and Count II of plaintiff’s complaint recite conclusory allegations relating to interference with plaintiff’s purported First Amendment rights, plaintiff failed to make any reference to the statute or other authority through which liability may be imposed against any defendant or aver sufficient facts for the Court to reasonably infer that moving defendant is individually liable for the misconduct alleged. Determining which theory of liability plaintiff brings in Count I or Count II is further muddled by the fact that plaintiff separately asserts a First Amendment retaliation claim and Section 1983 claim in Counts III and IV of his complaint respectively.”
Carroll argued that Geraghty failed to aver any facts related to when his alleged constructive termination or the alleged harassment occurred and therefore, the Court may infer that his claims are past the statute of limitations.
UPDATE
The plaintiff filed a response brief to the dismissal motion on Dec. 7, and began by dismissing the constructive termination and hostile work environment against defendant Carroll only.
Geraghty’s counsel also asserted that his deposition testimony qualified as protected speech under the First Amendment, which the plaintiff argued would have shielded him from professional retaliation on Carroll’s part.
“Here, the speech at issue concerns allegations of actual wrongdoing and a breach of public trust by government officials. Namely, the speech at issue concerned exposing a public employee’s attempts to facilitate false testimony under oath and exposing a governmental entity’s reckless policy of ignoring known dangers in an attempt to avoid liability,” the response brief stated.
“Plaintiff’s deposition addressed matters of public concern. Plaintiff’s burden is merely to show that he has pled sufficient facts to show that his First Amendment retaliation and Section 1983 claims are plausible. Plaintiff submits that he has amply satisfied this burden.”
The plaintiff added that his First Amendment retaliation and Section 1983 claims are not barred by any applicable statute of limitations, and that he has successfully pled circumstances to support his intentional infliction of emotional distress count.
For counts of constructive termination, hostile work environment, retaliation/violation of First Amendment rights, violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, plus punitive damages and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert D. Sokolove of Curtin & Heefner, in Yardley.
The defendants are represented by Paul Verduci and Andrew M. Rongaus of Siana Law in Chester Springs, plus John P. Gonzales of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-04733
Chester County Court of Common Pleas case 2021-05552
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com