Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Transcription

1 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TONYA L. MONTGOMERY-FORD, Plaintiff, Civil Division No. v. The CITY OF PITTSBURGH and LUKE RAVENSTAHL, in his individual capacity, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Tonya L. Montgomery-Ford, by undersigned counsel files this Civil Complaint and in support alleges the following: I. Jurisdiction 1. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983; 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4); and this Court s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C II. The Parties 2. Plaintiff Tonya L. Montgomery-Ford is an individual citizen who resides at 4561 Armorhill Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA At all times relevant hereto she was and is employed by Defendant City of Pittsburgh in its Bureau of Police. 3. Defendant City of Pittsburgh ( Pittsburgh ) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business at 414 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA Defendant Luke Ravenstahl is the former Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh and 1

2 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 11 occupied that position until on or about January 1, Therefore, Ravenstahl was a state actor who in this case acted and failed to act under color of state law. As part of his duties he oversees the City of Pittsburgh s Bureau of Police His place of business until January 1, 2014 was the City County Building, 414 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA His current address is 2251 Hazelton Street, Pittsburgh, PA He is sued in his individual capacity. III. Factual Background 5. Ms. Montgomery-Ford was hired in June 1989 by Defendant Pittsburgh as a Civilian Police Clerk in the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police ( Bureau ). She was promoted in February 1995 to Police Officer, her current position. 6. In January 2001, Ms. Montgomery-Ford was assigned to the Office of the Chief as an Assistant to the Chief of Police. One of her job responsibilities in this assignment include processing parking variances. 7. Parking variances permit a company or organization to use otherwise metered parking spaces on Pittsburgh streets without paying the full rate. In some cases these variances permit the company or organization s patrons to park for free, irrespective of parking ordinances that require payment of fees for that parking. 8. One of the valet companies that receives and received parking variances from the City of Pittsburgh is Tri State Valet, which is owned by Robert Gigliotti, an associate of former Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper and Defendant former Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. 9. Tri State Valet would use its parking variances for parking the cars of its customers, and thereby reap greater profits than it would if it would park those cars in a commercial garage. 10. For example, Tri State Valet would use the streets of Fifth Avenue in Downtown 2

3 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 3 of 11 Pittsburgh to park the vehicles of its patrons. It used those streets for free, but charged its patrons rates that usually were charged to other patrons whose cars were parked at a commercial garage. 11. By doing so, Tri State Valet would net a greater profit. 12. Gigliotti, Harper and Ravenstahl have been the subject of numerous media reports regarding special treatment of Tri State Valet in obtaining parking variances from the Bureau. 13. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) has launched an inquiry into allegations of corruption within the Bureau involving Ravenstahl, Harper and Gigliotti. 14. One of Ms. Montgomery-Ford s supervisors at her assignment in the Bureau is George Trosky, who, at Gigliotti s urging, was promoted from commander to assistant Chief by then-mayor Ravenstahl. 15. Beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2013, Gigliotti and Trosky harassed and intimidated Ms. Montgomery-Ford into processing valet parking variances for Tri State. Trosky would call or approach Ms. Montgomery-Ford to pressure her into issuing more parking spaces to Gigliotti. 16. For example, Trosky would call Ms. Montgomery-Ford on her cell phone demanding to know why a variance for Gigliotti was revoked during the Pittsburgh Regatta, and intimidating her into processing free parking variances for construction companies favored by Trosky. Variances for construction companies should have been handled by the Pittsburgh Public Works Department for a fee. 17. When Ms. Montgomery-Ford complained or refused these improper requests for variances, Former Chief Harper or former Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Mike Huss would overrule her. 3

4 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 4 of To show her opposition after being forced to process the Tri State Valet variances, Ms. Montgomery-Ford would sign her name over top the letters UP for under protest. 19. In early 2013, Ms. Montgomery-Ford refused to process a variance request for Gigliotti because he refused to fill out the request form. Trosky ordered Ms. Montgomery-Ford to give Gigliotti the variances, but she stood her ground and went to her supervisor at the time, Chief Maurita Bryant. Bryant met with Trosky, which resulted in Trosky filling out the forms for Gigliotti. 20. Ms. Montgomery-Ford s resistence to Gigliotti s improper requests for variances infuriated Trosky. 21. Ms. Montgomery-Ford further complained about and opposed numerous violations regarding the issuance of parking variances by the Police Bureau. For example, Ms. Montgomery- Ford complained about Deputy Chief Paul Donaldson s issuance of a variance to his brother under the name of his employer, Renewal Inc., and Bryant s issuance of a variances to Greg Rodgers, president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Pittsburgh chapter and Point Park University professor, and Mike Botta, also a Point Park professor, under the name of Downtown Security Partnership. 22. The FBI investigated allegations of parking variance violations and questioned Ms. Montgomery-Ford when the agents visited the Bureau to interview employees in February At no point did the FBI alert Ms. Montgomery-Ford that she was a target of the investigation. 23. On February 21, 2013, Ms. Montgomery-Ford provided a copy of Gigliotti s Market Square valet parking variance to a private citizen upon his request after the citizen had his car towed by employees of Tri State Valet. 24. The private citizen s complaint came amid allegations that Tri State Valet forced 4

5 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 5 of 11 visitors to use its service; used dozens of street parking spots instead of the designated Pittsburgh Parking Authority garage; and violated conditions of its valet parking permit. 25. That same day, February 21, 2013, Acting Police Chief Regina McDonald placed Ms. Montgomery-Ford on administrative leave without stating why. 26. The letter Ms. Montgomery-Ford received contained only one sentence, which read: Effective February 21, 2013, and until further notice, you are being placed on administrative leave. 27. In newspaper reports posted February 21, 2013, McDonald named Ms. Montgomery- Ford as one of the employees placed on leave while the FBI investigated the Bureau. 28. The decision to place Ms. Montgomery-Ford on leave was made by McDonald, Ravenstahl and Huss. 29. This decision to suspend Ms. Montgomery-Ford came the day after Harper was forced to resign as chief amid the federal scandal. investigation. 30. At no point was Ms. Montgomery-Ford the target of the FBI s corruption 31. In May 2013, Ms. Montgomery-Ford testified before a federal grand jury regarding the allegations of corruption in the bureau. 32. On May 31, 2013, the Pittsburgh Police Bureau s Office of Municipal Investigations ( OMI ) Manager Kathy Kraus telephoned Ms. Montgomery-Ford and inquired about invoices for the Police Department s purchase of blue knapsacks from Ms. Montgomery-Ford s company. Ms. Montgomery-Ford asked that Kraus notify her in writing to request that she make statements at Kraus office with an attorney present. 33. OMI conducted no further investigation, and Ms. Montgomery-Ford stayed on 5

6 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 6 of 11 administrative leave without being given any reason for the action. 34. Even Ms. Montgomery-Ford s union, the Fraternal Order of Police ( FOP ) Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, has been unsuccessful in finding out the reason for her suspension. 35. FOP chapter President Michael LaPorte sent McDonald a letter dated January 10, 2014, requesting a full and complete explanation regarding Ms. Montgomery-Ford s leave, but McDonald ignored the request. 36. Usually and customarily when a complaint concerning a member of the Police Bureau is provided to OMI, the Police Chief sends a memo to OMI requesting an investigation. Once the memo is received, a case number is generated and the complaint is entered into the system. The memo should contain an allegation stating the reason for the investigation, pursuant to the regulations for the complaint investigation process. 37. However, OMI did not receive a copy of the memo for Ms. Montgomery-Ford, nor could it find any record of a case number assigned for the complaint made against her. 38. On March 25, 2014, Ms. Montgomery-Ford met with OMI Investigator Roy Dean, who told her that her OMI complaint file could not be located, and no electronic case number had been assigned to the 2013 complaint. 39. Because of her extended period of administrative leave, Ms. Montgomery-Ford also is in jeopardy of having her Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission ( MPOETC ) certification expire. 40. On March 13, 2013, Ms. Montgomery-Ford ed Lieutenant Jennifer Ford in an attempt to verify her training dates for Ms. Montgomery-Ford previously spoke with Chris Harvey, who told her there were no dates listed for her. 6

7 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 7 of Other officers who have been placed on administrative leave have been afforded the opportunity to attend training to avoid a lapse in their certification. 42. More than a year after her suspension began, Ms. Montgomery-Ford remains on administrative leave. 43. Unlike other officers placed on leave who receive their base salary and a percentage of overtime and secondary duty pay, Ms. Montgomery-Ford receives only her base salary. 44. The leave continues to affect Ms. Montgomery-Ford s retirement savings, as well as her professional and personal reputation. Count I 42 U.S.C Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights 45. Ms. Montgomery-Ford incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully restated herein. 46. Ms. Montgomery-Ford, in complaining to her supervisors about the improper processing of parking variances; and in cooperating in the FBI s investigation into Bureau corruption; and in providing truthful testimony under subpoena before a federal grand jury, was acting as a citizen both speaking upon matters of public concern, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances and therefore her speech and petitioning activities are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 47. Ms. Montgomery-Ford, as a citizen of the United States, did not surrender her rights and privileges under the United States Constitution as a condition of employment with the City of Pittsburgh. 48. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Ms. 7

8 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 8 of 11 Montgomery-Ford, as a citizen, has a right to speak on matters of public concern, to petition the government, and to advocate ideas. 49. As described above, Defendants City of Pittsburgh and Ravenstahl took adverse action against Ms. Montgomery-Ford because she exercised her First Amendment rights. 50. As described above, Defendants imposed an arbitrary and discriminatory penalty on Ms. Montgomery-Ford for an undisclosed reason because she exercised her First Amendment rights. 51. As described above, Defendants subjected Ms. Montgomery-Ford to harassment and retaliated by placing her on leave for an indefinite period of time because she exercised her First Amendment rights. 52. As described above, Defendants denied Ms. Montgomery-Ford compensation for estimated overtime and detail pay when other officers who did not speak to matters of public concern received that compensation while on leave, all because she exercised her First Amendment rights. 53. At all relevant times, Defendants acted under color of state law, in that their actions constituted misuse of their power possessed solely by virtue of state law and were made possible only because they were cloaked with the authority of state law. 54. The actions of Defendants were intentional and were undertaken with reckless disregard of Ms. Montgomery-Ford s federally protected right to exercise her First Amendment rights. 55. The decision to place Ms. Montgomery-Ford on administrative leave because she exercised her First Amendment rights was a conscious choice by Defendants and deprived her, under color of state law, of her constitutional right to speak freely, advocate ideas and petition the 8

9 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 9 of 11 government under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in violation of 42 U.S.C As a result of Defendants intentional discrimination against Ms. Montgomery-Ford, she has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, anxiety, emotional distress, loss of reputation, loss of career opportunities, humiliation and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, Ms. Montgomery-Ford demands judgment against Defendants as follows: a. That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for the value of the wages she would have received had it not been for their illegal treatment of her, with interest; b. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff compensatory damages for the emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety and inconvenience she suffered as a result of Defendants discriminatory actions; c. That Defendant Ravenstahl be ordered to pay Plaintiff punitive damages pursuant to under 42 U.S. C. 1983; d. That Defendants be enjoined from discriminating or retaliating against Plaintiff in any manner prohibited by the United States Constitution; e. That Plaintiff be awarded against Defendants the costs and expenses of this litigation, including a reasonable attorneys fee; f. That Plaintiff be granted such other legal or equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Count II 43 Pa Cons. Stat. Ann et seq. Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law 57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully restated herein. 58. Under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa Cons. Stat. Ann et seq., 9

10 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 10 of 11 employees of a public body may not be discriminated against because they made, or were about to make, good faith reports to the employer or appropriate authority of incidents of waste or wrongdoing. 59. Furthermore, the Whistleblower Law also protects employees from discrimination because the employee participates in an investigation by the appropriate authority. 60. Defendant City of Pittsburgh is a public body within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat Defendant City of Pittsburgh also is an Employer, within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat Defendant Ravenstahl also was an Employer, within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat Ms. Montgomery-Ford made good faith reports of wrongdoing and waste within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. 1422, when she reported Defendants improper processing of parking variances, and corruption to her supervisors and to the FBI, and when she testified before the federal grand jury. 64. Defendants retaliated against Ms. Montgomery-Ford by placing her on administrative leave without due process and without a reason for the action because she reported Defendant s improper processing of parking variances, harassment and corruption, in violation of the Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa Cons. Stat As a direct and proximate result of Defendants placing Ms. Montgomery-Ford on administrative leave she lost significant amounts of overtime pay and benefits. 66. As a result of Defendants actions, Ms. Montgomery-Ford suffered embarrassment, 10

11 Case 2:05-mc Document 771 Filed 06/26/14 Page 11 of 11 humiliation, inconvenience and emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Ms. Montgomery-Ford demands judgment against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial as follows: a. Reinstatement to her original position or to a position in a Zone of her choosing, including all benefits and seniority rights; b. Payment of back wages and benefits from the date of her placement on leave; c. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial; d. Any actual damages incurred by Ms. Montgomery-Ford ; e. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney and fees; and f. Any other remedy the Court finds to be just. Respectfully submitted, Samuel J. Cordes & Associates /S/ Samuel J. Cordes Samuel J. Cordes Jessica B. Michael Pa.I.D. No (Cordes) Pa.I.D. No (Michael) 245 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA (412) Attorneys for Plaintiff 11