Shaffer v. Fayette Cnty. of Pa.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14-309
• Citation: 163 F.Supp.3d 280
• Parties: Thomas W. Shaffer, Plaintiff, v. Fayette County of Pennsylvania, and Al Ambrosini, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

163 F.Supp.3d 280

Thomas W. Shaffer, Plaintiff,

v.Fayette County of Pennsylvania, and Al Ambrosini, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-309

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed February 19, 2016

Thomas W. Shaffer, Uniontown, PA, pro se.

Marie Milie Jones, Michael R. Lettrich, Jonespassodelis PLLC, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CONTI

, Chief District Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Thomas W. Shaffer (“plaintiff”), an attorney formerly employed by Fayette County (the “County”) as an assistant public defender, filed this civil action against Fayette County Commissioner Al Ambrosini (“Ambrosini”) and the County (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly tortious conduct undertaken in connection with the termination of plaintiff's employment. In his operative pleading, plaintiff asserts claims against Ambrosini for the alleged violation of his due process rights and for defamation. Plaintiff also asserts a claim against the County under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)

.¹

Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts (ECF No. 61). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Fayette County is a Fourth Class County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (See Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Second Am. Compl. ¶9, ECF No. 31; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Second Am. Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No.35.) Pursuant to the Pennsylvania County Code, the corporate powers of Fayette County are vested in a board of county commissioners. See 16 PA. Stat. § 203

. It is undisputed that, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the County had a three-member board of commissioners comprised of Vincent Zapatosky (“Zapatosky”), Angela Zimmerlink (“Zimmerlink”), and defendant Ambrosini.

Plaintiff began working as a part-time assistant public defender for the County in January 2004. (DCSMF ¶1, ECF No. 76.)² During the course of his employment, plaintiff worked under the supervision of Jeffrey Whiteko (“Whiteko”), the County's Chief Public Defender. (Pl.'s Dep. at 25:25-26:5; Carnicella Dep. at 16:24-17:1.)³

Between October 2005 and June 2012, Whiteko issued a number of reprimands or warnings to plaintiff concerning perceived deficiencies in his work performance. (DCSMF ¶¶ 2-12.) In a memorandum dated October 6, 2005, Whiteko informed plaintiff that he had “been unhappy with [plaintiff's] performance for the last several months” and had previously “expressed [his] displeasure,” but recent actions in the “last three weeks have warranted this letter.” (DCSMF ¶2; Defs.' Ex. D, ECF No. 64-4.) According to Whiteko:

a. on September 26 and 27, 2005, plaintiff had failed to abide by Whiteko's policy concerning the handling of private criminal matters;

b. on September 29, 2005, plaintiff contacted the public defender's office from the law library to inform them that he had two separate matters scheduled before two different judges at 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. respectively, and had not yet appeared in court, which “caused much grief to the office and our office manager, Linda Rossi”;

c. on October 4, 2005, plaintiff was supposed to present a petition in court for the transport of a prisoner, but he had failed to do so; when Ms. Rossi asked about the petition, plaintiff “went to her desk and began to scream at her in the presence of our legal secretary and part time employee.”

(Id. ) Whiteko admonished plaintiff that, if he “continue[d] to be cavalier” concerning the office scheduling policy or if he was “too busy to maintain both a private and public practice,” then he “should part ways” with the public defender's office. (Defs.' Ex. D at 2.) Later that same month, plaintiff received written and verbal counseling from Whiteko after failing to appear for a hearing in front of a magisterial district justice due to the fact that he was waiting for a private client. (DCSMF ¶3; Defs.' Ex. E, ECF No. 64-5.)

On July 19, 2006, Commissioner Zimmerlink informed Whiteko that she had received a complaint about plaintiff swearing at a citizen in the hallway of the courthouse. Whiteko advised plaintiff about the complaint. Thereafter, a representative from the County's human resources department spoke to plaintiff, and plaintiff reportedly acknowledged that he had been “wrong.” (DCSMF ¶4; Defs.' Ex. F, ECF No. 64-6; Defs.' Ex. G, ECF No. 64-7; Defs.' Ex. H, ECF No. 64-8.) That same month, Whiteko sent plaintiff a letter concerning the need to have expert witness costs reviewed and approved prior to hiring the expert. Whiteko cited two instances in which plaintiff had failed to secure the necessary approval prior to hiring experts, which was “creating a serious problem” for other clients in light of the office's limited budget. (DCSMF ¶5, Defs.' Ex. I, ECF No. 64-9.)

In August 2006, Whiteko sent plaintiff a “last warning” concerning the manner in which he was handling his private and public criminal caseloads. Whiteko reminded plaintiff that, if he scheduled a private criminal hearing with a magistrate or judge, he was expected to help cover public defender cases before that same judicial official. (DCSMF ¶6; Defs.' Ex. J, ECF No. 64-10.)

On July 24, 2007, Whiteko met with plaintiff to discuss plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled court hearings. Whiteko memorialized the incident in a memorandum to plaintiff, noting:

This is not the first time I have had to reprimand you for missing schedules [,] being late for court or failing to pick up a missed day. I requested your resignation but after much discussion it was agreed that you will receive one last chance to correct the problems. (A copy of previous complaints are [sic] attached.)

You will receive no other chances.

(DCSMF ¶7; Defs.' Ex. K, ECF No. 64-11.)

The record shows that plaintiff continued to experience problems in 2011 and 2012. In September 2011, Magisterial District Justice Ronald J. Haggerty, Jr.'s office sent an email to Whiteko complaining that plaintiff was continuously late, leaving early before all his hearings and cases were handled, and socializing with police officers instead of working on cases. (DCSMF ¶8, Defs.' Ex. L, ECF No. 64-12.) Magistrate Haggerty wrote another letter in April 2012 complaining that, despite the court's very busy docket, plaintiff was using his time to draft omnibus pre-trial motions on other unrelated cases, which was further slowing down Magistrate Haggerty's docket. (DCSMF ¶9, Defs.' Ex. L.) The following month, plaintiff appeared forty minutes late for a proceeding before Magistrate Haggerty. When asked why he was late, plaintiff reportedly remarked that he had been at lunch, prompting Magistrate Haggerty to lodge another complaint. (DCSMF ¶10; Defs.' Ex. L.)

Plaintiff's employment file documents his difficulties with other judges as well. In January 2012 plaintiff was reportedly scheduled for trial before Judge Leskinen but, instead of showing on time for trial, he went to motion court and then to another judge's courtroom for private pleas; this reportedly prompted a telephone call from the court administrator's office informing the public defender's office that Judge Leskinen was “very irritated with the situation.” (Defs.' Ex. L at 2.) Plaintiff was again late to court on May 3, 2012, resulting in Whiteko covering the first three hearings before Judge Capuzzi. (DCSMF ¶11; Defs.' Ex. L.)

On June 5, 2012, Whiteko issued plaintiff a performance counseling form as a “final notice” of his unsatisfactory job performance based on the foregoing incidents occurring between July 2011 and May 2012. Whiteko listed plaintiff's attitude, tardiness, and inefficiency as the reasons that necessitated counseling. (DCSMF ¶12, Defs.' Ex. L.)

On August 30, 2012, plaintiff and Whiteko had a verbal altercation in the public defender's office which allegedly resulted in plaintiff yelling at Whiteko, using profanity, and referring to public defender clients as “scumbags.” (DCSMF ¶13.) As a result of this altercation, plaintiff was initially suspended with pay. (Id . ¶ 14.) By letter dated October 10, 2012, from Dominick Carnicella, the County's Human Resource Director (“Carnicella”), plaintiff was notified that the suspension would be unpaid. (DCSMF ¶18; Defs.' Ex. O, ECF No. 64-15.) The letter advised plaintiff that

the County Commissioners have determined that your actions on August 30, 2012 were inappropriate and violated County Policy by creating a disturbance in the workplace, using foul and abusive language and directing disrespectful language toward your supervisor. Due to these violations the County Commissioners have voted to convert your paid suspension to an unpaid suspension effective August 30, 2012 as well as to mandatorily refer you to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for an evaluation. This unpaid suspension shall continue through the date of your return back to work.

Your return back to work is contingent upon your successful completion of any evaluation and follow up plan recommended by the EAP program. Failure to complete the recommended plan shall result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action up to and including the termination of your employment. ...

(Defs.' Ex. O, ECF No. 64-15.)

Pursuant to the EAP referral process, Carnicella completed an informational form, which he sent to the EAP case management staff so that it could be shared with the evaluating therapist. (DCSMF ¶19; Defs.' Ex. P, ECF No. 64-16.) Under the topic “Expected goals,” Carnicella indicated: “Anger management, appropriate ways to handle stress and performance counseling. Appropriate ways to have discussions w/ supervisors. Return to work after completion of evaluation & recommended treatment.” (Id .)

As part of the EAP process, plaintiff met with counselor Adam Sedlock on at least two occasions for the purpose of determining whether plaintiff had an anger management problem. (DCSMF ¶20.) The first appointment involved intake information; the second...