PITTSBURGH – Butler County seeks to apply joinder to litigation brought by a Butler probation officer who alleged he was discriminated against by his superiors for requesting time off due to stress and anxiety, by joining the Butler County Court of Common Pleas as an additional defendant.
Shawn Yount initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 11 versus Butler County. All parties are of Butler.
“Plaintiff began working for defendant as a probation officer for the Butler County Office of Adult Probation in August 2009. In this role, plaintiff was responsible for field supervision of formerly incarcerated individuals. Plaintiff received high rankings on job-related tests and performance reviews, and he was an extremely productive member of the department. Throughout his tenure, he worked with the Butler County Drug Task Force, and he was well liked by the Adult Probation staff, the county detectives and other members of local law enforcement,” the suit said.
“In March 2020, members of the Office of Adult Probation were informed that several officers would be laid off indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff, as a result, took a voluntary furlough from his position with defendant. In late April 2020, the furloughed probation officers were called back into work in different waves. Upon his return to work, plaintiff was informed about a change to the structure of the department. Under the new guidelines, officers were no longer permitted to work with their regular partners; rather, a new schedule was created which matched each officer with varying partners on different days.”
The plaintiff explained that on several occasions, he was scheduled to work with individual employees of the department with whom he was not comfortable working alongside – such as one individual who forfeited his right to carry a firearm and another partner who had received absolutely no training, including mandatory basic training – leading him to be concerned for his safety, and suffer work-related stress and anxiety.
Because he continued to experience serious work-related stress, the suit said the plaintiff reached out to Chief County Probation Officer Doug Ritson to express his frustration and his desire to potentially resign.
As a result, Mr. Ritson suggested that the plaintiff consider taking medical leave to get a break from the high stress of the job. Specifically, Ritson stated to plaintiff, “You may want to consider using more of your sick time.”
In response to Ritson’s instruction, plaintiff reached out to his physician, Dr. Michael Trotta, for further treatment related to his increased anxiety. During his evaluation, Dr. Trotta stated that the plaintiff should take time off of work to adjust to new anxiety medication and to cope with his underlying stress.
Though Yount was approved for FMLA leave by the U.S. Department of Labor, and he scheduled himself to take 30 days of such leave, he said that Ritson accused him of taking medical leave in order to work at a side business that he owned, which the plaintiff said was untrue.
“County officials then requested that plaintiff participate in an independent medical examination, which was scheduled to take place in a conference room at a hotel located in Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 50 miles from defendant’s headquarters. Plaintiff was uncomfortable with notion of driving approximately 50 miles to meet a physician in a hotel conference room. Additionally, he had already received approval from Dr. Trotta to take leave, as well as authorization to use FMLA from the U.S. Department of Labor. As a result, plaintiff declined to attend the IME,” the suit stated.
“In a further effort to harass plaintiff during his leave, court administrator, Candice Graff, contacted him and told him that he was abusing sick leave. She said that they would discuss the future of his employment upon his return. This caused plaintiff great anxiety — the very reason for his use of protected leave. After taking with his wife, doctor, and therapist, plaintiff decided to resign amid the persistent harassment that he faced. In June 2020, plaintiff requested to use his vacation time through July 2020 and to resign at the conclusion of that time. Defendant refused and sent plaintiff a notice that he was terminated as of July 1, 2020. Plaintiff turned in all of his equipment and was never compensated for his vacation time.”
Butler County filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 11, charging that Yount did not properly explain the course of events leading to the lawsuit and had additionally failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiff did reach out to Mr. Ritson, a Court employee and his supervisor, regarding the fact that he did not like the changes in Court procedures and was unhappy about having to follow the Court’s new directives,” the answer stated.
“Mr. Ritson suggested that plaintiff take time to consider his decision before resigning and suggested he use sick leave in order to do so. Mr. Ritson was unaware that plaintiff suffered from any medical condition whatsoever. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded.”
The County further argued that Yount did not provide it with information regarding his medical history, treatment or the issues he was having with the Court, outside of what was contained on the FMLA certification that his doctor completed.
UPDATE
Butler County filed a motion to joinder the complaint on Jan. 10, by adding the Butler County Court of Common Pleas as a defendant in the action.
“Butler County and the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County are entities independent of one another. Plaintiff has erroneously sued a party that was not his employer, in Butler County. Plaintiff’s workplace discrimination claim must be brought against his employer. Plaintiff never worked for Butler County, he only worked for the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County. Due to this oversight, and out of deference to judicial economy, defendant Butler County asks this Honorable Court to join the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County as a required defendant in this action, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20,” the joinder motion stated.
“Without joinder of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, this Honorable Court cannot accord complete relief among the parties. Likewise, if the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County is not joined as a defendant, it could prejudice the Butler County Courts because it would not be able to protect its interest. Finally, failing to join the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County would leave defendant Butler County at risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations. Additionally, plaintiff will not be harmed by the joinder. In fact, the only way plaintiff can obtain relief is if the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County is joined as a proper defendant.”
The plaintiff responded to the joinder motion on Feb. 1, asking for the same intention of joinder and the same rationale.
For counts of disability discrimination and retaliation through violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, the plaintiff is seeking lost back pay resulting from defendant’s constructive discharge of plaintiff, lost front pay continuing into the future for defendant’s unlawful conduct, compensatory damages, including emotional damages and humiliation, punitive damages to punish defendant’s conduct and to deter similar future conduct, costs for bringing this action, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and continuing interest and any other relief that this Court deems necessary and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Prabhu Narahari of Manes & Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Christopher P. Gabriel, Christopher P. Furman and Stephanie L. Cera of Carfardi Ferguson Wyrick Weis & Gabriel, of Sewickley.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01063
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com