Rogers v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 3:18-CV-0039
| Decision Date | 09 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:18-CV-0039,3:18-CV-0039 |
| Parties | KYLE ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Presently before me is the Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Impertinent Matter (Doc. 5) filed by Defendants City of Wilkes-Barre, Anthony George, Marcella Lendacky, and Ralph Elick. Plaintiff Kyle Rogers asserts a variety of federal and state law claims related to his termination from employment as an officer with the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims. Because Rogers fails to state a claim under federal law and there exists no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted in part, the federal law claims will be dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
The relevant facts alleged in the Complaint are as follows:
Plaintiff Kyle Rogers ("Rogers" or "Plaintiff") was hired by Defendant City of Wilkes-Barre (the "City") as a full-time patrolman on February 6, 2014. (See Compl., ¶ 170). After completing the field training program, Rogers was assigned to Platoon B under the supervision of Lieutenant Oshefski for ten (10) months. (See id. at ¶ 174). Rogers did not have any disciplinary write-ups during this time. (See id. at ¶ 175).
In January 2015, Rogers was reassigned to Platoon A under the supervision of Defendant and then-Liuetenant Marcella Lendacky ("Lendacky"). (See id. at ¶ 177). Shortly after his assignment to Platoon A, Rogers began to have problems with Lendacky's management techniques. (See id. at ¶¶ 179-183). Rogers sought advice on handling the situation from his union, but Lendacky learned of this and became enraged. (See id. at ¶¶ 184-186).
Approximately one (1) week later, Rogers received his first disciplinary complaint based on a verbal argument he admits occurred with Lendacky. (See id. at ¶¶ 188-190). After this disciplinary action, Rogers requested a transfer, but that request was denied by former-Chief of Police Hughes ("Hughes") for lack of seniority. (See id. at ¶¶ 194-195).
On April 5, 2015, Rogers submitted a Code of Conduct grievance against Lendacky to his then-union president Sergeant Phil Myers ("Myers"). (See id. at ¶¶ 196-197). The "grievance was not processed at that time." (Id. at ¶ 199).
In mid-June 2015, Hughes granted Rogers' request for a transfer to Platoon B. (See id. at ¶ 200). Also around this time Rogers was disciplined for a second time. (See id. at ¶¶ 201, 268). Specifically, Rogers admitted that he violated City policy by missing three hearings. (See id. at ¶ 202). For this Rogers received a written reprimand signed by Hughes. (See id. at Ex. "4").
Rogers was disciplined for a third time in October 2015 after he fell asleep on the job. (See id. at ¶ 203). This disciplinary charged was filed by his Platoon B supervisor Defendant Lieutenant Ralph Elick ("Elick"). (See id. at ¶ 204). Rogers did not contest this charge. (See id. at ¶ 205).
On December 15, 2015, an incident occurred in the "bidding room" at the Police Department building. (See id. at ¶ 209). Rogers and two (2) off-duty officers were there for union seniority based shift bidding for the upcoming 2016 year. (See id. at ¶ 210). Those officers joked that due to Rogers' lack of seniority he was going to be reassigned back to Lendacky's platoon. (See id. at ¶ 211). "[S]tressed out about the thought of having to go back to Platoon A," (id. at ¶ 8(q)), Rogers "drew his department issued firearm from his holster and raised it." (Id. at Ex. "5"). The firearmwas fully loaded. (See id. at Ex. "6"). Rogers then re-holstered his firearm, laughed, stated to his colleagues that he was not pointing the firearm at them, and exited the room. (See id. at Exs. "5"-"6").
The following day, Hughes ordered Elick to perform an investigation of the previous day's incident. (See id. at ¶ 216). As part of that investigation, Elick requested the other officers in the bidding room with Rogers, Mark Hilpp and Joe Homza, prepare written accounts of the incident. (See id. at Ex. "7"). Elick concluded that Rogers committed three (3) intentional violations:
On December 22, 2015, the City, through Hughes, issued a letter to Rogers regarding "Loudermill Notice: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer And Dereliction of Duty." (Id. at Ex. "3"). That letter indicates a meeting was scheduled for December 28, 2015 to discuss the events of December 15, 2015. (See id.). The letter further provides:
The meeting was held on December 28, 2015. (See id. at ¶ 261). Rogers provided a "Response to Loudermill Notice" the same day. (Id. at Ex. "8"). Therein, Rogers explained that he had difficulties with Lendacky in the past and that she was targeting him and looking to have him fired. (See id.). Nevertheless, Rogers acknowledged that this did not justify his conduct, noting that his "impulsive action . . . could have resulted in someone being seriously injured or killed." (Id.).
Defendant Anthony George ("George") took office as the City's elected mayor in the first week of January 2016. (See id. at ¶ 150). Lendacky was a political ally and supporter of George's mayoral campaign. (See id. at ¶ 157). On January 4, 2016, George directed Hughes to accept Elick's report and to refer Roger's conduct to the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office for investigation. (See id. at ¶ 228). Two days later, January 6, 2016, George announced that Lendacky would be the new City Chief of Police. (See id. at ¶ 230).
Rogers was dismissed from his City employment on January 8, 2016. (See id. at ¶¶ 231, 242). Rogers was informed by letter signed by George that his termination was effective immediately. (See id. at Ex. "9").
Rogers applied for unemployment compensation benefits two (2) days after he was terminated. (See id. at ¶¶ 270). That application was denied. (See id. at ¶ 286). Rogers appealed and the Unemployment Compensation referee found Rogers eligible for benefits. (See id. at ¶¶ 287, 308). The City appealed and the Unemployment Compensation Board reversed the decision of the referee. (See id. at ¶¶ 309-310). Rogers then appealed the Board's decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, but Rogers' appeal was denied. (See id. at ¶¶ 314, 319-323). Rogers next filed a Petition for Allocatur with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, (see id. at ¶ 326), but that petition was denied. See Rogers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 811 MAL 2017 .
Rogers also filed a grievance under the terms of the applicable collectivebargaining agreement after his employment was terminated. (See Compl., ¶¶ 328-29). Rogers did not prevail at arbitration. (See Doc. 11, Ex. "A").
In addition, Rogers sought workers' compensation benefits after he was discharged by the City. (See Compl., ¶¶ 343-344). Rogers' claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied. (See Doc. 11, Ex. "B").
After Rogers was terminated, a local newspaper published an article entitled "WB police officer terminated after pointing loaded gun at other at headquarters, says Mayor George." (See Compl., Ex. "1"). Although George did not identify the former officer, the newspaper confirmed that Rogers was the officer terminated. (See id.). In that article, George is quoted as saying, inter alia: ; "That was one of my first duties, cause it's law and order - not just on the streets, it's in City Hall and in the police department"; and that the prior administration left Rogers' (Id.).
Based on the foregoing, Rogers commenced the instant action against the City, George, Lendacky, and Elick (collectively, where appropriate, "Defendants") on January 5, 2018. (See id., generally). While not entirely clear, the Complaint purports to assert the following twelve (12) "Claim[s] for Relief": (1) violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (2) violation of free speech rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (3) violation of free speech/right to report work injury protected by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (4) Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of property interest; (5) Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of liberty interest; (6) deprivation of equal protection and right to reputation under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (7) violation of the "Employer Rules of Law and Order" protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution; (8) violation of Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act;...
To continue reading
Request your trial