PITTSBURGH – Allegheny County’s Family Law Division has won litigation brought by one of its courtroom hearing officers, which alleged that her anxiety disorder condition was not accommodated in violation of state law.
Annette Tierney first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 2, 2023 versus the Allegheny County Family Law Division. Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Tierney began working for the Allegheny County court system in its Family Law Division in 1990, when appointed by the Administrative Judge at the time, Eugene Strassburger. At all times pertinent hereto, Tierney was employed as a Hearing Officer. In 2018, Tierney submitted a reasonable request for accommodation after she was diagnosed by her physician with an anxiety disorder,” the suit said.
“Tierney requested that she be permitted to work exclusively out of the Penn Hills office instead of the office located in downtown Pittsburgh, or to do trainings remotely from the Penn Hills Office. Tierney was constantly told to amend her decisions because her supervisor, Jeanne Bingman, wrongly accused her of malfeasance in the way she handled cases. The ‘protocol’ that Bingham and the Administration was forcing Tierney to follow violated her oath to uphold the law and comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Professional Code of Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
The suit added after making her request, Tierney was subjected to harassing and retaliatory conduct by her supervisors and co-workers. Furthermore, Tierney says she first communicated her need for accommodation with the Family Court Administrator, Patrick Quinn. In response, Quinn allegedly said, “I fail to see anything in your file for which we would have to accommodate you.”
Subsequently, Tierney proceeded to submit medical documentation showing her need for an accommodation for her anxiety disorder – and as a result, Tierney was forced to use unpaid leave through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, instead of being given a reasonable accommodation or using paid time off when she could not attend events at the Pittsburgh office.
“Tierney has been subjected to false accusations of failing to attend meetings she did attend. In 2019, Tierney was suspended over alleged improper conduct. Tierney was never given the opportunity to present her side of the story before being suspended. Tierney was accused of ineffective performance related to a case that she did not hear,” the suit stated.
“Tierney was not afforded the opportunity to explain that she had not heard the case but was instead reprimanded. Tierney was accused of not properly servicing a client. In fact, Tierney assisted the client, who had appeared late for a hearing without proper documentation for the hearing, by informing the client that they would need to schedule a new hearing and bring the required documents at the new hearing. Tierney was not given the chance to explain her position but was again reprimanded without recourse.”
The defendant filed preliminary objections in the matter on March 3, 2023, charging that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is not applicable to employees of the judiciary or the judiciary itself, according to the separation of powers doctrine.
“Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, the three branches of this Commonwealth (the General Assembly, the Executive and the Judiciary) are each separate, equal and independent of the other. Neither the Executive Branch nor the General Assembly, acting through an administrative agency, may constitutionally infringe upon the powers or duties of the Judiciary,” per the defendant’s objections.
“In the matter of Renner v. Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania definitively held that the PHRA does not apply to the Judiciary on the basis of separation of powers. As stated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Renner, ‘to apply the PHRA to the judiciary…is an incursion into our exclusive and independent domain to supervise judiciary personnel. Accordingly, we hold that application of the PHRA to the judiciary and its employees infringes upon this Court’s ability to administer the courts, promulgate rules and policies, and supervise its employees, and, thus, violates separation of powers principles.”
According to the defense, Renner, much like the instant case, “involved an attempt by an employee of a judicial district to claim recovery under the PHRA for discrimination and retaliation due a disability…however, the Supreme Court specifically held that this PHRA claim was barred on the basis of separation of powers.”
UPDATE
On May 6, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth G. Valasek granted the defendant’s preliminary objections and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims.
“Upon consideration of the preliminary objections of the Allegheny County Family Law Division of the 5th Judicial District, the accompanying brief and any response thereto, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s claims against the Allegheny County Family Law Division of the 5th Judicial District are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice,” Valasek ruled.
The plaintiff was represented by David M. Manes of Manes & Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Robert J. Krandel of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-001667
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com