PHILADELPHIA – An East Bradford Township public works official has for the second time denied liability for claims of retaliation and civil rights violations, brought by a former employee who alleged he was fired for reporting dangerous conditions relating to decaying tree limbs in the municipality.
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.
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.
After U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Timothy J. Savage granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses on March 11.
The defendants denied the allegations and demanded strict proof is demanded at trial since they were framed as conclusions of law, and that no responsive pleading is required.
“Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Township defendants upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. To the extent that plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges claims that have been dismissed, the Township defendants deny that plaintiff has a right to recovery on these claims and against these parties,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated, in part.
“No act, action or omission of defendants were the proximate cause or legal cause of any damage allegedly sustained by plaintiff and this constitutes a complete defense to the within causes of action. All pertinent conduct and action taken by defendants were done in accordance with all established and existing laws, rules, regulations, statutes and constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages asserted against defendant East Bradford Township are barred by state and federal law in accordance with the City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.”
UPDATE
Carroll’s counsel filed an answer to the complaint on March 14, including 13 affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted as to answering defendant. To the extent that plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations, answering defendant claims same. Answering defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court and subsequent cases. Answering defendant is entitled to absolute immunity as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court and subsequent cases. Answering defendant asserts all immunities and defenses to which he may be entitled pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,” per the defenses.
“Plaintiff was, at all times relevant to his complaint, afforded all rights and privileges to which he was entitled under the U.S. Constitution and applicable state and federal laws. Punitive damages are not warranted or available against answering defendant. At all times relevant hereto, answering defendant acted without malicious intent and in good faith and with reasonable justification or belief in the legality and lawfulness of his actions. Answering defendant did not suffer any adverse employment action because of the exercise of his First Amendment rights, and he was not retaliated against. Plaintiff did not engage in speech protected by the First Amendment.”
Carroll’s counsel added that if it is determined that the plaintiff suffered damages, which answering defendant specifically denies, the plaintiff’s damages are barred, in whole or in part, by his failure to mitigate damages – and is also barred by after-acquired evidence and the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.
For counts of constructive termination, hostile work environment, retaliation/violation of First Amendment rights and violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 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