PITTSBURGH – The Mars Area School District has denied causing harm to an Allegheny County man formerly in its employ, who claimed the District made a false statement which later prevented him from being hired by the Internal Revenue Service.
Dylan Altemara first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 5 versus Mars Area School District, of Mars.
“Plaintiff was employed as a secretary by the defendant from August of 2018 until his resignation on or about June 11, 2019. In or about October of 2018, plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim against the defendant. On or about June 11, 2019, plaintiff and defendant entered into a settlement agreement which settled the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim,” the suit said.
“As part of that settlement agreement, defendant and plaintiff agreed to the plaintiff’s resignation from his position with the defendant effective June 11, 2019. On or about Nov. 22, 2021, plaintiff was appointed to the position of Contact Representative with the Internal Revenue Service. As part of the hiring process, plaintiff submitted paperwork to the IRS which included information about his former employment history.”
The suit continued that at some future point, the defendant sent a letter to the IRS in which it falsely alleged that the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant from his position as secretary – an allegation the plaintiff maintains is false.
“The materially false allegation by defendant, as described hereinbefore above, contradicts statements that plaintiff provided to the IRS as part of the hiring process. In a letter dated June 29, 2022, plaintiff was informed that as a result of the defendant’s substantially and materially false allegation, as more fully described hereinbefore above, a background investigation was referred to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for a ‘suitability determination.’ The substantially and materially false allegation in defendant’s letter, as more fully described hereinbefore above, falsely indicated that the plaintiff engaged in wrongdoing and discredited and/or harmed him publicly and/or professionally,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s letter, which contained a substantially and materially false allegation, a background investigation into the plaintiff’s employment history was referred to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for a ‘suitability determination.’ Furthermore, defendant’s conduct, as described hereinbefore above, constituted a breach of the mutually agreed-upon terms of the settlement agreement entered into by the parties. Defendant breached the terms of the agreement when it falsely indicated to the IRS that the plaintiff’s employment had been terminated when, in reality, plaintiff had resigned pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that, as a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s letter containing a substantially and materially false allegation, he has been given less opportunities for advancement in his employment.”
UPDATE
In a Jan. 13 answer to the complaint, the District provided that the plaintiff “was an at-will employee whose employment was terminated” in November 2018, and that his civil rights were in no way violated through the end of his tenure with it.
Furthermore, the District asserted that it “provided only truthful and accurate information in response to inquiries from OPM related to plaintiff” and that the plaintiff “admitted at a workers’ compensation hearing that he had been terminated, and the subsequent resignation made as part of his workers’ compensation settlement in June of 2019 was not intended to rescind or undo that termination.”
“The characterization of plaintiff’s retirement as a resignation has no basis in law or fact. To the contrary, evidence will be presented at trial supporting the termination of plaintiff’s at-will employment by District. Plaintiff’s alleged resignation was impossible as plaintiff was terminated at a public meeting of defendant District prior to plaintiff’s workers’ compensation hearing. Plaintiff has failed to meet the test for Stigma Plus. District provided only truthful and accurate information in response to inquiries from OPM and did not unlawfully interfere with plaintiff’s employment prospects. By providing only truthful and accurate information in response to inquiries from OPM, District is immune from civil liability for such disclosures or its consequences pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8340.1,” the District’s answer added, in part.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to plead damages with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by any applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. No act or omission of District was the proximate or legal cause of any alleged damage sustained by the plaintiff and this constitutes a complete defense to plaintiff’s complaint. There was no reasonable certainty or reasonable likelihood that plaintiff’s termination at a public meeting by District would lead to any cognizable claims.”
The District asserted all common law and statutory immunity and qualified immunity to which they may be entitled, that it did not act with deliberate indifference and there was no causal link between the District’s alleged actions and the plaintiff’s alleged harm.
For counts of violating civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory general damages in an amount proven at trial, compensatory special damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as this Court may deem proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Thomas W. King III, Jordan P. Shuber and Michael D. Hnath of Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, in Butler.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01474
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com