YORK – In response to a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a borough councilmember against North York Borough and its tax collector, the defendants have lodged preliminary objections which argue that defects in the suit have deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Vivian Amspacher first filed suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 21 versus North York Borough and Keith Ramsay. All parties are of York.
Amspacher was appointed to the North York Borough Council in 2005 and elected in 2009. In 2021, she was campaigning for an election taking place at the time, often with defendant and then-Tax Collector Ramsay.
Amspacher said Ramsay’s harassment of her started during the May 2021 election.
“Plaintiff made a comment to defendant Ramsay about the voter turnout and how the crowd was rather small. Defendant Ramsay stood up, jumped up and down three times, grabbed his crotch, and shouted, ‘I got a big penis!’ Nancy Brunk, the Mayor of York, was present at the time the comment was made. Ms. Brunk did not reprimand defendant Ramsay for his comment nor did she take any action against him,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff informed defendant Ramsay that his conduct was inappropriate and that it caused her to be uncomfortable. Defendant Ramsay dismissed plaintiff’s concerns and informed her that she ‘needed to learn how to take a joke.’ This caused plaintiff to feel incredibly humiliated, degraded, embarrassed and distressed.”
In November 2021, the suit added that Ramsay asked Amspacher to join “a sex club” with him and further claimed Ramsay sent the plaintiff a video of a “male’s penis and legs from the waist down” – which, allegedly, was the defendant masturbating and accompanied by the caption, “Something to think about.”
When she complained, Amspacher was told to produce evidence of sexual harassment at a November 2021 meeting, at which Ramsay was also present. But the suit said that the investigation stopped days later, and Amspacher soon began feeling retaliated against for making her complaint.
“By way of example, respondents refused to allow plaintiff to make any corrections and/or revisions to the minutes that were prepared following a council meeting, despite plaintiff being able to do so before she reported defendant Ramsay,” the suit said.
In 2022, Ramsay was sentenced to three years of probation after firing a gun in the air to scare a group of mourners who had gathered in a nearby cemetery.
UPDATE
On Feb. 2, the defendants filed preliminary objections in response to Amspacher’s suit, arguing that she did not exhaust her administrative remedies in the actions taken against them.
“Plaintiff pleads no facts to establish that she satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, by filing a claim before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, naming the Borough and co-defendant Ramsay as respondents in connection with the claims asserted in the instant case. As such, plaintiff has failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing suit before this Honorable Court in violation of the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement imposed by the PHRA,” the objections stated, in part.
“Notably, on or about Nov. 30, 2023, plaintiff served the Borough with a complaint before the PHRC against the Borough only. The PHRC complaint mirrors many of the same allegations raised in the instant case including that her protected class is disability by virtue of PTSD arising from ‘sexual harassment.’ However, this complaint does not name co-defendant Ramsay as a respondent. Moreover, it alleges the earliest date the discrimination took place was Dec. 5, 2022, well after the sexual harassment alleged against co-defendant Ramsay. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s 2023 PHRC complaint cannot and does not satisfy the exhaustion or the time limitations imposed by the PHRA.”
Likewise, the defense argued that another PHRC complaint filed by the plaintiff, this one in 2021, “alleged that the discriminatory conduct began on Nov. 13, 2020, well before the sexual harassment that is the basis of her claims in the instant case took place.”
“In her 2021 PHRC complaint, plaintiff files suit only against the Borough. Thus, the 2021 PHRC complaint cannot and does not satisfy the exhaustion or the time limitations imposed by the PHRA. Not only does plaintiff’s complaint in the instant case fail to plead any facts to establish compliance with the PHRA’s exhaustion requirement thereby depriving this Honorable Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, but also, the factual predicate pled in plaintiff’s complaint establishes that plaintiff’s cause of action expired long before she ultimately filed her claim with the PHRC. In view of the foregoing, this Honorable Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, because plaintiff has failed to plead a requisite condition precedent to enable her to file suit before this Honorable Court and the Borough objects to plaintiff’s complaint on this ground pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1028(a)(1),” the objections continued.
“Moreover, as discussed above, because plaintiff has failed to plead a requisite condition precedent to enable her to file suit before this Honorable Court and has, in fact, failed to satisfy this condition precedent, plaintiff has failed to comply with law or rule of Court and has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law and the Borough objects to plaintiff’s complaint on this ground, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Numbers 1028(a)(2)&(4). In the event the Court determines that the 2023 PHRC complaint is timely filed and raises the same claims as those in the instant case, which is specifically denied, the 2023 PHRC complaint constitutes a prior pending action and the Borough objects to plaintiff’s complaint on this ground pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1028(a)(6). In addition to the foregoing, in the event the Court determines that neither of plaintiff’s prior PHRC complaints raises the same claims raised herein, then plaintiff has failed to exhaust a statutory remedy, and the Borough objects to plaintiff’s complaint on this ground as well pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1028(a)(7).”
Subsequent to the objections, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb. 19.
For counts of discrimination, retaliation and aiding and abetting, all in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, including but not limited to, all emotional distress, back pay, front pay, interest, punitive damages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements of action, plus such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Ian M. Bryson of Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Rolf E. Kroll of Margolis Edelstein, in Camp Hill.
York County Court of Common Pleas case 2023-SU-003554
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com