PITTSBURGH – A Greensburg police officer has settled claims of age discrimination connected to the City’s failing to promote him in favor of other candidates, for $35,000.
W. Robert Jones of Westmoreland County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 31 versus the City of Greensburg.
“On July 9, 2002, plaintiff started working for defendant as a patrol officer. On May 12, 2008, defendant promoted plaintiff to Sergeant. On Aug. 12, 2013, defendant promoted plaintiff to Lieutenant. On Jan. 21, 2022, plaintiff, age 51, applied for the open position of Chief of Police. On Feb. 17, 2022, defendant’s Mayor, Robert L. Bell, emailed the police department members that defendant chose another applicant for the position. The successful applicant is significantly younger and less qualified than plaintiff for the position of Chief of Police. Defendant ranked plaintiff second highest amongst the remaining applicants. Defendant did not provide plaintiff with a reason for its ranking of plaintiff or its decision not to promote plaintiff,” the suit said.
“On March 14, 2022, at its regular council meeting, defendant voted to hire the significantly-younger applicant for the position of Chief of Police. On March 29, 2022, plaintiff applied for the open position of Captain. On or about April 4, 2022, plaintiff engaged in protected activity when he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC regarding defendant’s failure to hire him for the Chief of Police position because of his age. On April 6, 2022, defendant’s Chief of Police emailed plaintiff stating that defendant decided not to hold interviews for the applicants for the position of Captain because defendant’s Mayor and the hiring committee already knew what the applicants’ responses would be. On April 12, 2022, defendant received notice of plaintiff’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination. On June 1, 2022, defendant’s City Solicitor, Zachary Kansler, sent an email to the applicants for the position of Caption informing them that defendant, reversing its decision not to hold interviews, now decided to hold interviews for the job.”
The suit continued that on June 8, 2022, the plaintiff underwent an interview for the position of Captain, with only City Solicitor Kansler and City Administrator, Kelsye A. Hantz, a departure of defendant’s normal interview process.
The following day, June 9, 2022, Mayor Bell emailed the applicants that he, the defendant’s new Chief of Police and the interview committee chose another candidate.
“On June 13, 2022, defendant’s City Council appointed another applicant for the position of Captain. The successful applicant, who is less qualified, did not engage in protected activity,” the suit states.
“Defendant’s rationale was, ‘After lengthy discussions and evaluations, we feel very confident that Sergeant Sarsfield will lead our Police Department in a positive direction and interface seamlessly with Chief Denning, as we continue to provide the residents of Greensburg the type of exemplary police service that they’ve been accustomed to for so many years.’ Defendant did not provide plaintiff an explanation for the decision not to promote him to the position of Captain.”
On Oct. 31, the City answered the complaint and denied those substantive allegations.
“Plaintiff and three other applicants were interviewed for the position of Chief of Police on Feb. 16, 2022. The averments of Paragraph 12 are admitted. By way of further response, the email stated that Shawn Denning was chosen for the position of Chief of Police because they believed he was the best candidate to keep moving the department forward,” the answer stated.
“Shawn Denning was chosen for the Chief of Police. Chief Denning was the highest-ranking applicant, over the age of 40, an experienced police officer and supervisor for Greensburg, with prior experience in the New York City Police Department and the U.S. Marine Corps. The email speaks for itself. It is admitted that Council voted to hire Shawn Denning for the Chief of Police. The remaining averments are denied.”
The City further denied that it failed to hire him for the Chief of Police position because of his age, admitted that the City Council appointed Sarsfield as Captain and provided additional affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to set forth and is unable to establish a viable claim or right to relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as the facts do not support an inference of discrimination and plaintiff was not subjected to adverse employment action based upon age or retaliation. Plaintiff has failed to set forth and is unable to establish that the defendant created, fostered, ignored, or were deliberately indifferent to discrimination or retaliation. Defendant’s decisions and actions were based upon legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons and plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that the proffered reasons were pre-textual or that discrimination or retaliation was the real reason. Plaintiff has failed to set forth and is unable to establish a basis for equitable, declaratory or any other form of relief,” the defenses stated.
“Plaintiff’s claims are limited and/or barred by the affirmative defenses of arbitration and award, estoppel, laches, statute of limitations and waiver. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, including but not limited to, the grievance process available to plaintiff under the collective bargaining agreement between the Fraternal Order of Police General Greene Lodge No. 56 and the City of Greensburg. Defendant raises as additional defenses to the causes of action asserted all applicable affirmative defenses as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c). Defendant reserves the right to amend its pleadings to assert any additional defenses as necessary. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate or attempt to mitigate his damages, if any, as required by law.”
After an unsuccessful mediation session terminated in January, the case was resolved on March 29, according to a notice of judgment filed with the Clerk of Court. The City had made an offer to settle the case for $35,000 back on March 20, and Jones accepted the deal.
“Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant submits this offer to allow judgment to be taken against defendant by plaintiff in the amount of $35,000. This judgment is exclusive of all counsel fees, but inclusive of all other damages, costs, interest or monetary claims of any kind arising from the causes of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint and all claims that could have been asserted in this litigation. This offer of judgment is inclusive of all claims and requests for relief advanced by plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, excluding attorney’s fees. Through acceptance of this offer, plaintiff understands and agrees that this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice,” the offer stated.
“This offer of judgment is made for the purpose specified in Rule 68 and is not to be construed as an admission that defendant is liable in this action or that plaintiff has suffered any damages. Said judgment is to have no effect whatsoever except to resolve this case fully and finally. This offer of judgment is not admissible as evidence in any proceeding except, if rejected, in a proceeding to determine costs. As part of the foregoing offer, plaintiff shall be entitled to recover all reasonable and necessary counsel fees. Upon receipt and review of plaintiff’s billing entries, defendant shall promptly notify plaintiff’s counsel if it disputes any fees or costs. If defendant has objections, counsel shall confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. If agreement is not reached, plaintiff may petition the court for the recovery of reasonable and necessary counsel fees and costs recoverable. Defendant reserves the right to oppose any fees or costs it believes to be unreasonable or unnecessary. Notice is hereby given that defendant City of Greensburg, reserves the right to seek the recovery of all costs incurred subsequent to this offer of judgment at the conclusion of this litigation if this offer of judgment is not accepted in writing within 14 days.”
The plaintiff was represented by Colleen E. Ramage of Ramage Lykos, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Brian P. Gabriel and Allison N. Genard of Campbell Durrant, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01255
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com