HARRISBURG – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that, under the premise of statutory indemnification, the City of Pittsburgh cannot be compelled to pay a civil judgment to a local man beaten by an off-duty police officer a decade ago, as the officer was not acting within his official “scope of employment” when the assault transpired.
On Nov. 23, the six members of the state’s high court unanimously found that because Pittsburgh Police Department Officer Colby Neidig wasn’t acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted plaintiff Shane McGuire in 2012, the City cannot be held liable for compensating McGuire to the tune of $235,575, that he won in a subsequent civil case against Neidig.
In an issue of first impression, the case centered on whether or not the concept of “scope of employment” as recognized in state law meant the same thing as “color of law” as recognized in federal law claims associated with 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Justice David N. Wecht authored the opinion on his own behalf and that of colleague justices Debra Todd, Kevin M. Dougherty and P. Kevin Brobson.
Justice Christine Donohue filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy.
“In late 2012, 16-year-old Shane McGuire and a group of his friends smashed pumpkins and stacked bricks on the doorstep of a home in McGuire’s neighborhood. The teens were still on the property when the homeowner – City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Colby Neidig – arrived home with his wife and children. McGuire watched the family’s reaction to the vandalism and then banged on the front door and ran away, accidently tripping over his own brick booby-trap in the process,” Wecht said.
“Neidig heard the commotion, saw McGuire running and gave chase. After a half-mile pursuit, Neidig caught McGuire, knocked him to the ground, and punched him in the face. Neidig was not wearing his police uniform at the time, nor did he identify himself as a police officer. Neidig called 911 and restrained McGuire until Officer David Blatt, an on-duty City of Pittsburgh police officer, arrived. Two years later, McGuire filed a federal lawsuit against Neidig, Blatt and the City of Pittsburgh, asserting excessive use of force in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law assault and battery claims.”
When eventually taken to a federal court jury, it returned a verdict in favor of McGuire, deciding that Neidig had used unreasonable force against McGuire while acting under color of state law under Section 1983, and that Neidig was held responsible for McGuire’s assault and battery claims as well.
Between compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, McGuire won a judgment of $235,575. However, Neidig did not seek to be indemnified from the judgment by the City – rather, he assigned McGuire his right to sue the City and get the judgment satisfied, under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
In the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, the jury found that the City was not required to indemnify Neidig under the PSTCA, since he was not on-duty and acting within his official duties when he assaulted McGuire.
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, it came to the same conclusion, leading McGuire to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
“Put simply, the ‘color of state law’ and ‘scope of employment’ inquiries ‘do not involve precisely parallel considerations’ because Section 1983 ‘imposes liability on state officials for conduct taken within, as well as without, the scope of their authority,” Wecht said.
Wecht explained that the state Supreme Court “cannot find a single example of either a court or a legislature distinguishing an employee’s ‘scope of office’ from his or her ‘scope of duties,’ or giving ‘scope of office’ a broad interpretation of the sort that McGuire champions, we therefore conclude that the common law ‘scope of employment’ test…should govern under the PSTCA, just as it does under the sovereign immunity statute.”
“The color of state law inquiry turns on whether the public employee purported to exercise official state authority, not whether he or she was authorized – or reasonably believed himself or herself to be authorized – to act in a certain way,” Wecht concluded.
“This means that a police officer may sometimes act both under color of state law and beyond the scope of his or her employment. Thus, indemnity in an excessive force case like this one might turn on factors that largely are irrelevant under Section 1983’s color of state law inquiry.”
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 26 WAP 2021
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 141 C.D. 2020
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-17-009635
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com