PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia has denied that it committed discriminatory conduct against a Black female officer, who alleged she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by her superiors through her being reassigned on two occasions and the removal of her service weapon for more than four years.
Eyleen Archie first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 26 versus the City of Philadelphia.
“On Feb. 12, 2007, plaintiff was hired by the City as a Police Officer with the 22nd District. At all times material, Plaintiff was and is an African American female. While working in the 22nd District, plaintiff was assigned to the Court Liaison Unit. While patrolling, plaintiff was required to carry a service firearm. On or around Jan. 5, 2018, defendant initiated an Internal Affairs investigation into disciplinary charges brought against plaintiff. The same day, plaintiff was forced to turn in her firearm while the Internal Affairs investigation was conducted,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff was also placed on restricted duty and was transferred from her unit in the 12th District to the Delaware Valley Intelligent Center (DVIC). While working in the DVIC, plaintiff was restricted to administrative duties and was neither permitted to actively patrol, nor was plaintiff permitted to perform any police duties that required the carrying of a service firearm. To date, plaintiff has never been interviewed by Internal Affairs in relation to the investigation initiated on Jan. 5, 2018. To date, plaintiff has never received any communications from Internal Affairs regarding the charges brought on Jan. 5, 2018. Four years have now passed since plaintiff’s firearm was unlawfully taken.”
In March 2021, Archie received additional disciplinary charges related to a photo of Officer Brooke Quinn the plaintiff took, which was forwarded to news reporter and former Philadelphia police officer Andre Boyer. After a hearing where she was found innocent of any wrongdoing, Archie was told she would receive a formal decision from the panel within 30 days. But this did not occur.
Instead, several weeks later, plaintiff received a call from Captain Davis of the Court Liaison Unit, informing plaintiff that she was found innocent of any wrongdoing and cleared for full, unrestricted duty. However, Archie was also informed that she had been reassigned from the Court Liaison Unit to the 12th District and would not be restored the use of her service weapon.
“Plaintiff was further informed that she was required to undergo re-certification training with her firearm as her prior certification had lapsed during the three-year period of the Internal Affairs investigation. Plaintiff agreed to undergo re-certification so that her service firearm would be returned such that she could return to full duty. In or around May 2021, plaintiff attended two weeks of training with the Firearm Training Unit. At the conclusion of the two-week training period, plaintiff received a score of 99 out of 100 possible points, thereby qualifying her to return to full duty,” the suit stated.
“On the last day of training, Firearms Instructor DeNofa informed the class that the scores would take approximately two weeks to clear such that trainees could retrieve their firearm. Plaintiff never received a phone call from anyone regarding the retrieval of her firearm or the status of her re-certification. On or around July 8, 2021, plaintiff called the Firearms Training unit and spoke to an Officer King. Officer King informed plaintiff that additional certification and training would be necessary before plaintiff could retrieve her firearm. Officer King further informed plaintiff that she would need to travel to Harrisburg to complete written, physical, and psychological evaluations to obtain her re-certification.”
Archie responded by informing Officer King that her employment was never actually terminated and that her firearm re-certification was the only training that needed to be completed – and Officer King responded by stating, “I am only telling you what is told to me.”
Following her telephone call with Officer King, Archie contacted Roosevelt Poplar, the Vice President of the Fraternal Order of Police. The plaintiff relayed her conversation with Officer King to Poplar, and he responded, “That is incorrect. Were you terminated?” Archie responded, “No, and I have completed all of my yearly in service training as well as my firearm training.”
“Plaintiff forwarded all of her in service training certifications to Poplar. Upon review, Poplar informed plaintiff that although he was not currently in the office, he would resolve the situation on Monday morning. Plaintiff further informed Poplar of the discriminatory fashion in which the Internal Affairs investigation was handled. Plaintiff explained that her firearm was taken at the commencement of the Internal Affairs investigation, whereas investigations into white male officers never resulted in them being relieved of their firearm. Plaintiff further informed Poplar that white male officers were generally permitted to remain on full duty whereas plaintiff was immediately placed on restricted duty, removed from her assigned unit and never brought back despite the conclusion of the investigation,” the suit added.
“Poplar responded to plaintiff’s complaint by asking, ‘Did you ever receive a letter from Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission (MPOETC)?’ Plaintiff responded, ‘No, I did not receive anything.’ Poplar assured plaintiff that he would remedy the situation upon his return to the office on Monday. In or around March 2022, plaintiff received her service firearm. To date, plaintiff has not received any communications from Poplar regarding her report of discrimination.”
An amended version of the lawsuit filed on Oct. 10 added Deputy Commissioner Christine M. Coulter and Capt. Maria Ortiz-Rodriguez as defendants in the case.
On Dec. 14, the plaintiff filed requests for entry of default against the City, Coulter and Ortiz-Rodriguez.
“Plaintiff Eyleen Archie, by and through her attorney, Christopher J. DelGaizo, Esq. and the Derek Smith Law Group, hereby requests pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Clerk enter default against defendants City of Philadelphia, Deputy Commissioner Christine Coulter and Capt. Maria Ortiz-Rodriguez, as defendants have failed and/or refused to file an answer or responsive pleading to plaintiff’s amended complaint, which was properly served on defendants on Oct. 11, 2022,” the requests stated.
UPDATE
The City warded off a default judgment by issuing an answer to the complaint on Dec. 20, admitting it suspended the plaintiff, but otherwise denying that it discriminated against her.
“Plaintiff’s complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Captain Scott Drissel is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII may be barred because plaintiff failed to exhaust the applicable administrative remedies,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated.
For counts of disparate treatment, hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unlawful race discrimination, racially-hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, disparate treatment, hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plus disparate treatment in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, the plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial, plus interest, including but not limited to, all emotional distress and lost wages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, disbursements of action, and for all other relief available under the law or at equity.
The plaintiff is represented by Christopher J. DelGaizo of Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Elizabeth U. Okakpu and Nicole S. Morris of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department and Solicitor’s Office, respectively.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02915
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com