PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for a local attorney of more than four decades, who said he was fired from his role as a Delaware County public defender in 2020 due to his age and disability and after a stroke, is now seeking a sooner trial date.
Leigh B. Bechtle first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 19, 2020 versus Delaware County, of Media.
Born in 1949 and after a successful tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, Bechtle said he graduated cum laude from Ohio University and earned his law degree from Widener University School of Law. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar I 1979.
“For the next 35 years, his practice was devoted to defense litigation and trial work. At the age of 65, plaintiff opted to serve in the public sector. He became a full-time assistant public defender with the Public Defender’s Office upon being hired in or about August 2014. A few weeks after plaintiff began his duties he suffered a stroke,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff spent six weeks in Bryn Mawr Rehab Hospital where he received physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy to regain the use of the left side of his body. Aside from enduring, significant impairments in using the left side of his body, the stroke has impaired his speech due to partially paralyzed vocal cords. Notwithstanding these multiple, significant impairments, plaintiff successfully handled courtroom duties for the PDO’s Juvenile unit.”
In February 2020, allegedly due to a complaint from one or more judges who said he could not understand Bechtle, the plaintiff was abruptly transferred into the Appeals unit.
Bechtle said there was no effort made to accommodate him or utilize technology so that the complaining judges could understand him.
“After the COVID-19 related office shutdown, the new Director, Christopher Welsh, fired plaintiff on or about Aug. 17, 2020 for fabricated reasons. Welsh told plaintiff that two memoranda he had recently completed were ‘bad, and below the standards he was hired to uphold,” per the suit.
“Prior to discharging plaintiff, Welsh had expressed disdain for older attorneys in the office. During his short tenure, Welsh has also terminated the employment of other older attorneys for no apparent or legitimate reason.”
Bechtle averred he had no prior warnings, disciplines or corrective actions, his Appeals unit supervisor issue had concerns or criticisms of plaintiff’s work, or of the memoranda he prepared, and his career had featured published writings, contrary to the criticism he received from Welsh.
Counsel for Delaware County filed an answer to the complaint on Feb. 24, which generally denied Bechtle’s allegations and put forward a number of affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Defendant did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of any alleged disability. On the contrary, defendant acted lawfully and in good faith towards plaintiff at all times material to the complaint. Defendant did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of his age. On the contrary, the defendant acted lawfully and in good faith towards the plaintiff at all times material to the complaint. Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons to terminate plaintiff,” the answer stated.
“Defendant had reasonable policies and procedures in place to prevent disability and age discrimination as well as other forms of discrimination and retaliation, and plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail himself of such policies and procedures. Plaintiff was not qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff did not make defendant aware of his need for an accommodation. If it is determined that plaintiff suffered damages, plaintiff’s damages are barred, in whole or in part, by his failure to mitigate.”
Delaware County filed a motion for summary judgment in the case on Oct. 1, arguing that the plaintiff failed to properly plead and prove his discrimination claims.
“Plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to support his claims against the County. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to establish that: (1) He is a qualified individual within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; (2) That plaintiff ever desired or requested an accommodation for his disability; (3) A causal connection between plaintiff’s age and his termination; or (4) That the County’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretext. Therefore, plaintiff’s ADA, Rehabilitation Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against the County fail as a matter of law,” the motion stated.
“While plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that the County failed to accommodate his disability, among other claims, plaintiff alleges in his deposition testimony numerous times that he did not need an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his position.”
The County continued that, in its view, Bechtle “failed to adduce any evidence that would allow the fact finder to infer that the County’s proffered reason for plaintiff’s termination is a ‘mere fabrication’ or that plaintiff’s disability was the real motivating factor in his termination.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Michael M. Baylson denied the County’s motion for summary judgment on Jan. 3.
“Whether Bechtle was a good writer or bad writer is a subjective qualification that cannot prevent him from establishing a prima facie claim of disability discrimination. Moreover, plaintiff has produced evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that Bechtle was qualified for his position. David DiPasqua, who was the leader of Bechtle’s trial team in the Juvenile Unit for five years, testified in his deposition that Bechtle’s performance was ‘fantastic,” Baylson said.
“Papi, who oversaw Bechtle in the Appeals Unit, testified in his deposition that Bechtle’s performance on assigned appeals was unobjectionable. Emilio DiMatteo, who served as Welsh’s predecessor, testified in his deposition that he never heard of any clients complaining about the quality of Bechtle’s representation. Plaintiff has therefore established that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Bechtle was qualified for his position.”
Baylson further found that summary judgment should not be granted for the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and that in determining what the genuine reason for Bechtle’s termination was, “a reasonable factfinder might further conclude that Bechtle was targeted because of his age” due to remarks which were made to other older employees in the Public Defender’s Office.
Bechtle filed an amended version of his complaint on Jan. 28, with an additional count for unlawful age discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
“In violation of the PHRA, the County has engaged in knowing, willful, purposeful and unlawful discrimination by terminating plaintiff’s employment on account of his age,” plaintiff counsel stated.
“As a result of the age discrimination inflicted by defendant, plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to denial of employment, lost wages, lost benefits, lost promotions, lost training and lost experience. As a result of age discrimination inflicted by defendant, plaintiff has also suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.”
In March 16 answer to the amended complaint, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s new PHRA charge.
“Answering defendant incorporates by reference as if same were more fully set forth herein at length its Answer to Paragraphs 1-43 of plaintiff’s complaint as if same were more fully set forth herein at length. Paragraphs 45-47 are denied as conclusions of law,” the defense stated.
“Answering defendant incorporates by reference as if same were more fully set forth herein at length its answer to plaintiff’s complaint. Answering defendant asserts all defenses and immunities available to it pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel wrote a letter to Baylson on March 22, requesting a teleconference and a sooner trial date in the action.
“The Court has already denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I write to ask for a teleconference at the Court’s earliest opportunity so that a trial date may be fixed, along with the attendant pre-trial deadlines. My client is 72 years of age. He seeks reinstatement to his position as Assistant Public Defender should he prevail. If a trial is extensively delayed, this remedy of returning to his job could be permanently compromised,” plaintiff counselor Marc E. Weinstein said.
The teleconference will be held Thursday, per Baylson’s decree.
For violation of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, ADEA and PHRA, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
• The County being enjoined from maintaining its illegal policy, practice, or custom of discriminating against employees based on their disability or perceived disability, and/or age, and is to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination and to adhere thereto;
• The County shall compensate plaintiff, reimburse plaintiff, and make plaintiff whole for any and all pay and benefits plaintiff would have received had it not been for defendant’s illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, salary, pay increases, medical and other benefits, training, promotions, pension, and seniority. Plaintiff should be accorded those benefits illegally withheld from the time the County terminated plaintiff’s employment.
• The County shall pay plaintiff compensatory damages for the pain, suffering, mental anguish and humiliation caused it has caused to plaintiff by its illegal actions as permitted by the Rehab Act and ADA;
• Because the county willfully violated plaintiff’s rights under the ADEA, the County shall pay liquidated damages to plaintiff pursuant to section 626(b) of the ADEA;
• Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
• Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc E. Weinstein of Weinstein Law Firm in Fort Washington and Ralph E. Lamar IV, in Arvada, Colo.
The defendant is represented by John P. Gonzales and Katherine Ann Cordry of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-05803
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com