PITTSBURGH – Westmoreland County authorities have been granted a confidential protective order surrounding certain elements of discovery, in a harassment and professional retaliation suit from the former warden of the county’s prison.
John Walton of Mount Pleasant Township first 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 claimed 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 argued 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.”
After an amended complaint was filed on Nov. 16 and another motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 30, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied the defendants’ motion on Jan. 10.
The defendants then filed an answer to the complaint on Jan. 28, where they argued that the plaintiff’s job performance was “below standard”, that they never embarked on campaign of discrimination and retaliation against the plaintiff – and brought 21 separate affirmative defenses against the suit.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Westmoreland County maintains anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in the work place. Subject to discovery, plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants did not violate any of plaintiff’s rights or harm him in any way. To the contrary, defendants at all times acted lawfully toward plaintiff. Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages and/or other remedies pursuant to any federal or state law,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims fail as plaintiff will be unable to prove that defendants discriminated, harassed or retaliated against him in any manner. Subject to discovery, plaintiff may have unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by his employer and/or may not have complied with applicable policies. Subject to discovery, plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his damages. Defendants acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing that its conduct did not violate any law and, in fact, defendants’ conduct did not violate any law. Subject to discovery, plaintiff may not establish a prima facie case necessary to recover under the relevant statutes.”
UPDATE
On March 1, the defendants filed a motion for a confidential protective order.
“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. Plaintiff’s counsel consented to this motion via email dated March 1, 2022,” the motion read.
The same day, Fischer granted the motion.
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