PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has thwarted an attempt by Westmoreland County and its Corrections Commissioner to throw out litigation from the former warden of the county’s prison, which accused them of harassment and retaliation over his refusal to make the commissioner’s political hires.
John Walton of Mount Pleasant Township filed suit on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania versus Westmoreland County and its Corrections Commissioner Gina Cerilli, both of Greensburg.
Walton, who served as the warden of the Westmoreland County Prison for more than 17 years, alleged in his complaint that he was forced to resign and retire in November of 2020, because of ‘relentless and baseless harassment, discrimination and retaliation’ from Commissioner Cerilli.
Specifically, Walton alleged that Cerilli “embarked on a never ending campaign of discrimination, retaliation and character assassination” against him over his refusal to follow her instructions to make “discriminatory political hires and promotions.”
Walton claims Cerilli's “proposed hiring practices” constituted discrimination against minorities and females. He further claims Cerilli “weaponized” the county's human resources department with false complaints and “sham” investigations in retaliation against him, as well as publicly attacked him including over his employment suspension of a Cerilli supporter and family friend who pleaded guilty to human trafficking.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10 for failure to state a claim, seeking to have the entire suit thrown out for a variety of reasons.
“Generally, defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the following basis: Certain claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and defendant Cerilli cannot be held personally liable for the actions of the Commission or the Prison Board,” the motion stated.
“There are insufficient facts pled to support an individual capacity claim; Count I lacks a factual basis to support a First Amendment political affiliation claim; Counts II and III lack facts to support age or retaliation claims and there is no basis to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress in part to support that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.”
The motion’s accompanying brief argues that the plaintiff does not clearly plead a right to relief on any claims prior to Nov. 15, 2018 (300 days prior to the 2019 EEOC charge filing).
“The only allegations in the complaint occurring after this date, or within the applicable statute of limitations, are that Cerilli tried to ‘oust’ Walton by stating her ‘disgust’ for him, that Cerilli criticized him, that he was subjected to unidentified ‘public insults, false and defamatory accusations, and unfounded criticism of his job performance’”, that Cerilli stated Walton ran the prison like a ‘circus’ and that plaintiff did not received a pay increase in July 2020,” the brief stated.
“Any claims arising out of claimed ‘harassment and a pervasive hostile work environment’ beginning in 2015 which include: Cerilli’s political actions in 2016, Cerilli’s movement to fire Walton in 2016 ‘unfounded complaints’ against Walton and the alleged statement about Walton being unable to take orders from a female superior are barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed accordingly.”
The dismissal motion further argued that Cerilli is only one of five members of the Westmoreland County Prison Board and one of three members of the Board of Commissioners, and a result, “could not take final action on an employment decision nor can she be held personally liable for any acts of those Boards as a whole.”
The remainder of the plaintiff’s claims, the motion stated, are lacking in factual support.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied the defendants’ motion.
“Upon consideration of defendants’ Westmoreland County and Gina Cerilli’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike, their brief in support, plaintiff John Walton’s brief in opposition, the deadline for any reply brief to be filed within 14 days having expired and after evaluating the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint in light of the prevailing standards governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, pursuant to which the Court must accept all of the well-pled factual allegations as true, resolve all inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, and require them to merely state plausible claims for relief and that affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations ‘may not afford the basis for a dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6),’ unless such defense is apparent from the face of the complaint, as well as the relevance and nature of plaintiff’s allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), that defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike is denied as plaintiff has sufficiently pled plausible claims for relief under the prevailing standards. It is further ordered that defendants shall file their answer by Jan. 24,” Fischer stated.
For counts of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 political affiliation through violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, sex discrimination, harassment, retaliation, violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, all other just relief and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Thomas B. Anderson of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Teresa O. Sirianni and Morgan M.J. Randle of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00860
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com