Don Kovac V Ptc Complaint
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Don Kovac V Ptc Complaint as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,445
- Pages: 14
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONALD KOVAC, Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, MITCHELL RUBIN, GEORGE HATALOWICH, MELVIN SHELTON and MARK ROWE, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No.:
COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, by and through his attorneys, Ronald D. Barber and Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, and files his Complaint against the above-named Defendants, of which the following is a statement:
Parties
1.
Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, is an adult individual residing at 5041
Grove Rd, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236. 2.
Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (“PTC”) is an
independent commission organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Case 2:05-mc-02025
3.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 2 of 7
Defendant Mitchell Rubin was at all relevant times the Chairman of
the PTC. Rubin has since been removed from that post by the Governor of Pennsylvania on grounds of participation in political corruption. 4.
Defendant George Hatalowich was at all times relevant the Chief
Operating Officer of the PTC. 5.
Defendant Melvin Shelton was at all times relevant a managerial
employee of the PTC. 6.
Defendant Mark Rowe was at all times relevant the Business Agent
of Teamsters Union Local 77 (“Local 77”), the union representing employees of the PTC’s Eastern Region.
Jurisdiction and Venue 7.
This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, for damages
based on the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff by Defendants, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), for conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights. 8.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343.
9.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
Background 10.
From April 2005 till November 20, 2008, Plaintiff had been
employed by the PTC as a Labor Relations Manager. 11.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was engaged in activities
protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
12.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 3 of 7
At the time of the events complained of herein, Patricia Schlegel
was nominally Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor. 13.
One of Plaintiff’s responsibilities was to investigate and decide the
second step of the contractual grievance procedure involving union employees of the PTC. 14.
At the PTC, the unwritten rule was that PTC union employees who
had favored political connections would be afforded favorable treatment at the second step of the grievance procedure – favorable treatment that was not available to other employees. This was a pattern, practice and policy of PTC that was known to and actively supported and maintained by the individual Defendants as well as other PTC decisionmakers. 15.
In mid-2008, Plaintiff was asked to investigate and hear an appeal
from the termination of employment of a PTC District #4 Toll Collector named O’Reilly, stemming from an alleged dispute with a motorist. 16.
The alleged dispute between O’Reilly and the motorist was
particularly egregious in that O’Reilly had allegedly assaulted the motorist, and PTC was in possession of video footage of the assault.
The victim had
threatened to provide the video to news media if the employee were not terminated. 17.
O’Reilly’s termination was appealed to Plaintiff by Local 77.
18.
Plaintiff had reported to his employer that it would not be in the best
interests of PTC to reinstate O’Reilly.
3
Case 2:05-mc-02025
19.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 4 of 7
During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Melvin Shelton
directed Plaintiff to reinstate O’Reilly in keeping with the PTC pattern and practice and not because the facts warranted such reinstatement. 20.
During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Mark Rowe advised
Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be fired if he did not reinstate O’Reilly. 21.
Plaintiff did not allow the threats of his termination from
employment to influence his decision to terminate O’Reilly, but did advise his employer of the existence of the threats. 22.
On information and belief, Defendant Rowe as business agent of
the union demanded of Defendant Shelton to have Plaintiff fired in retaliation for Plaintiff’s disloyalty in speaking out about and in deciding the O’Reilly appeal. 23.
On information and belief, Defendant Shelton communicated these
demands to Defendant Rubin, who in turn contacted Defendant Hatalowich and instructed him to fire Plaintiff. 24.
On information and belief, all of the individual defendants knew and
intended that Plaintiff’s termination was in retaliation for Plaintiff’s disloyalty, and conspired and agreed among themselves to bring about Plaintiff’s firing. 25.
Shortly after the O’Reilly termination, Plaintiff’s work schedule and
work locations were changed in a manner that adversely affected Plaintiff. 26.
On November 20, 2008, as Plaintiff was driving on Pennsylvania
toll-road in a car owned by, and provided as a benefit of his employment with, the PTC, he was pulled over by a State Trooper and informed that he had been fired.
4
Case 2:05-mc-02025
27.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 5 of 7
Plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his refusal to reinstate the union
PTC employee and for his whistle-blowing on PTC’s prejudicial and unethical favoritism of its union employees. 28.
Prior to the retaliation, Plaintiff had an impeccable employment
record with the PTC and had been an exemplary employee. 29.
Subsequent to Plaintiff’s termination, and upon information and
belief, Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff’s rightful receipt of unemployment compensation, as further retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 30.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-29 as though fully set
forth herein at length. 31.
Defendants, under color of State law, and in violation of Plaintiff’s
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and in further violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment right of freedom of speech and association, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff as set forth above. 32.
The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, amounted to an
unlawful retaliation for the exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as well as an infringement upon Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and a denial of the equal protection of the law.
5
Case 2:05-mc-02025
33.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 6 of 7
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as set forth
above, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and has sustained damages including, but not limited to: a.
Loss of income and earning capacity;
b.
Loss of benefits of employment; and
c.
Emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and attorney’s fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and proper.
COUNT II – Violation of Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law 34.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 33 as though fully set forth
herein at length. 34.
Plaintiff is entitled to protection and relief under Pennsylvania’s
Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1421 et seq. 35.
Plaintiff’s firing was in retaliation for his good faith report to the PTC
that O’Reilly should be terminated, a report that was in direct contravention of the PTC’s unethical policy of favoritism towards its union employees covered by Teamsters Local No. 77. 36.
The conduct of Defendants as set forth above violates the
Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law.
6
Case 2:05-mc-02025
37.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 7 of 7
The conduct of Defendants as set forth above was willful,
intentional, egregious, and designed to cause Plaintiff damages. 38.
As the direct and proximate consequence of the Defendant’s
conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages including: a. Loss of income and earning capacity; b. Loss of benefits of employment; and c. Emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and attorney’s fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and proper. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY
By: /s/ Ronald D. Barber Ronald D. Barber Pa. ID No. 52734 Suite 2200 Four Gateway Center 444 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-5423 Fax: (412) 281-8264 [email protected]
7
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-2
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-2
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-3
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-4
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-5
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-6
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-7
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONALD KOVAC, Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, MITCHELL RUBIN, GEORGE HATALOWICH, MELVIN SHELTON and MARK ROWE, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No.:
COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, by and through his attorneys, Ronald D. Barber and Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, and files his Complaint against the above-named Defendants, of which the following is a statement:
Parties
1.
Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, is an adult individual residing at 5041
Grove Rd, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236. 2.
Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (“PTC”) is an
independent commission organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Case 2:05-mc-02025
3.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 2 of 7
Defendant Mitchell Rubin was at all relevant times the Chairman of
the PTC. Rubin has since been removed from that post by the Governor of Pennsylvania on grounds of participation in political corruption. 4.
Defendant George Hatalowich was at all times relevant the Chief
Operating Officer of the PTC. 5.
Defendant Melvin Shelton was at all times relevant a managerial
employee of the PTC. 6.
Defendant Mark Rowe was at all times relevant the Business Agent
of Teamsters Union Local 77 (“Local 77”), the union representing employees of the PTC’s Eastern Region.
Jurisdiction and Venue 7.
This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, for damages
based on the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff by Defendants, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), for conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights. 8.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343.
9.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
Background 10.
From April 2005 till November 20, 2008, Plaintiff had been
employed by the PTC as a Labor Relations Manager. 11.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was engaged in activities
protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
12.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 3 of 7
At the time of the events complained of herein, Patricia Schlegel
was nominally Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor. 13.
One of Plaintiff’s responsibilities was to investigate and decide the
second step of the contractual grievance procedure involving union employees of the PTC. 14.
At the PTC, the unwritten rule was that PTC union employees who
had favored political connections would be afforded favorable treatment at the second step of the grievance procedure – favorable treatment that was not available to other employees. This was a pattern, practice and policy of PTC that was known to and actively supported and maintained by the individual Defendants as well as other PTC decisionmakers. 15.
In mid-2008, Plaintiff was asked to investigate and hear an appeal
from the termination of employment of a PTC District #4 Toll Collector named O’Reilly, stemming from an alleged dispute with a motorist. 16.
The alleged dispute between O’Reilly and the motorist was
particularly egregious in that O’Reilly had allegedly assaulted the motorist, and PTC was in possession of video footage of the assault.
The victim had
threatened to provide the video to news media if the employee were not terminated. 17.
O’Reilly’s termination was appealed to Plaintiff by Local 77.
18.
Plaintiff had reported to his employer that it would not be in the best
interests of PTC to reinstate O’Reilly.
3
Case 2:05-mc-02025
19.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 4 of 7
During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Melvin Shelton
directed Plaintiff to reinstate O’Reilly in keeping with the PTC pattern and practice and not because the facts warranted such reinstatement. 20.
During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Mark Rowe advised
Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be fired if he did not reinstate O’Reilly. 21.
Plaintiff did not allow the threats of his termination from
employment to influence his decision to terminate O’Reilly, but did advise his employer of the existence of the threats. 22.
On information and belief, Defendant Rowe as business agent of
the union demanded of Defendant Shelton to have Plaintiff fired in retaliation for Plaintiff’s disloyalty in speaking out about and in deciding the O’Reilly appeal. 23.
On information and belief, Defendant Shelton communicated these
demands to Defendant Rubin, who in turn contacted Defendant Hatalowich and instructed him to fire Plaintiff. 24.
On information and belief, all of the individual defendants knew and
intended that Plaintiff’s termination was in retaliation for Plaintiff’s disloyalty, and conspired and agreed among themselves to bring about Plaintiff’s firing. 25.
Shortly after the O’Reilly termination, Plaintiff’s work schedule and
work locations were changed in a manner that adversely affected Plaintiff. 26.
On November 20, 2008, as Plaintiff was driving on Pennsylvania
toll-road in a car owned by, and provided as a benefit of his employment with, the PTC, he was pulled over by a State Trooper and informed that he had been fired.
4
Case 2:05-mc-02025
27.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 5 of 7
Plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his refusal to reinstate the union
PTC employee and for his whistle-blowing on PTC’s prejudicial and unethical favoritism of its union employees. 28.
Prior to the retaliation, Plaintiff had an impeccable employment
record with the PTC and had been an exemplary employee. 29.
Subsequent to Plaintiff’s termination, and upon information and
belief, Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff’s rightful receipt of unemployment compensation, as further retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 30.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-29 as though fully set
forth herein at length. 31.
Defendants, under color of State law, and in violation of Plaintiff’s
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and in further violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment right of freedom of speech and association, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff as set forth above. 32.
The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, amounted to an
unlawful retaliation for the exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as well as an infringement upon Plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and a denial of the equal protection of the law.
5
Case 2:05-mc-02025
33.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 6 of 7
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as set forth
above, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and has sustained damages including, but not limited to: a.
Loss of income and earning capacity;
b.
Loss of benefits of employment; and
c.
Emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and attorney’s fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and proper.
COUNT II – Violation of Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law 34.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 33 as though fully set forth
herein at length. 34.
Plaintiff is entitled to protection and relief under Pennsylvania’s
Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1421 et seq. 35.
Plaintiff’s firing was in retaliation for his good faith report to the PTC
that O’Reilly should be terminated, a report that was in direct contravention of the PTC’s unethical policy of favoritism towards its union employees covered by Teamsters Local No. 77. 36.
The conduct of Defendants as set forth above violates the
Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law.
6
Case 2:05-mc-02025
37.
Document 397
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 7 of 7
The conduct of Defendants as set forth above was willful,
intentional, egregious, and designed to cause Plaintiff damages. 38.
As the direct and proximate consequence of the Defendant’s
conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages including: a. Loss of income and earning capacity; b. Loss of benefits of employment; and c. Emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and attorney’s fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and proper. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY
By: /s/ Ronald D. Barber Ronald D. Barber Pa. ID No. 52734 Suite 2200 Four Gateway Center 444 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-5423 Fax: (412) 281-8264 [email protected]
7
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-2
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-2
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-3
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-4
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-5
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-6
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Case 2:05-mc-02025
Document 397-7
Filed 04/06/2009
Page 1 of 1
Related Documents
Don Kovac V Ptc Complaint
April 2020 10
Biraogo V. Ptc Digest.docx
June 2020 21
Complaint Mlb Don Russ Baseball
December 2019 4
Ug V Countrywide Complaint
April 2020 12
Fairey V. Ap Complaint
December 2019 30