HOLT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
Filing
134
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT "DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL" 121 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE ON 6/25/14. 6/25/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID HOLT II,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-5510
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of “Defendants’
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police, Johnson, Winterbottom and Brahl’s
Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative Motion for a New Trial”
and accompanying brief (Doc. No. 121); “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative a New Trial” and accompanying
statement of facts (Doc. No. 131); and oral argument on May 7, 2014, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Johnson, Brahl, and Winterbottom’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
as to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Count II
of the second amended complaint, is:
a. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff with respect to
the Philips incident;
1
b. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s non-assignment to Reading Patrol Sergeant
by Defendant Johnson;
c. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s reassignment to Staff Services Sergeant by
Defendant Johnson;
d. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff with respect to
the removal from the Officer-of-the-Day roster;
e. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s non-assignment to the Station Commander
positions at Jonestown and Schuylkill Haven by Defendant Johnson;
f. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Brahl and against Plaintiff with respect to the
roll call comments;
g. DENIED with respect to the initiation of the IAD against Plaintiff pursuant to the
“day off” incident by Defendant Brahl;
h. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s non-assignment to KOP by Defendant
Winterbottom; and
i. DENIED with respect to the initiation of the IAD investigation against Plaintiff
for the schizophrenic memo by Defendant Winterbottom.
2. Defendant Pennsylvania State Police’s (“PSP”) 1 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
as to the Title VII racial discrimination claim, Count III of the second amended
complaint, and Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to the
1
Since Plaintiff does not allege that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took any actions that
were distinct from those taken by his employer, the PSP, we will refer only to the PSP.
2
state pendent PHRA aiding and abetting racial discrimination claim, Count IV of the
second amended complaint, is:
a. GRANTED in favor of the PSP and Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff
with respect to the Philips incident;
b. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s non-assignment to Reading Patrol Sergeant
by Defendants Johnson and the PSP;
c. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s reassignment to Staff Services Sergeant by
Defendants Johnson and the PSP;
d. GRANTED in favor of the PSP and Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff with
respect to the removal from the Officer-of-the-Day roster; and
e. DENIED with respect to the non-assignment to the Station Commander positions
at Jonestown and Schuylkill Haven by Defendants Johnson and the PSP.
3. Defendants Johnson, Brahl, and Winterbottom’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
as to the First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Count I of the
second amended complaint, is:
a. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff for the
non-assignment to the Station Commander positions at Jonestown and Schuylkill
Haven;
b. DENIED with respect to the initiation of the IAD against Plaintiff pursuant to the
“day off” incident by Defendant Brahl;
c. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Winterbottom and against Plaintiff with
respect to the non-assignment to KOP;
3
d. GRANTED in favor of Defendant Winterbottom and against Plaintiff with
respect to the IAD investigation pursuant to the “command conference” incident;
and
e. DENIED with respect to the initiation of the IAD investigation against Plaintiff
for the schizophrenic memo by Defendant Winterbottom.
4. Defendant PSP’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to the Title VII retaliation
claim, Count III of the second amended complaint, and Defendant Johnson’s Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law as to the state pendent PHRA aiding and abetting retaliation
claim, Count IV of the amended complaint, is DENIED with respect to the
non-assignment to the Station Commander positions at Jonestown and Schuylkill Haven.
5. The jury’s award of $25,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages
attributable to the roll comments is VACATED.
6. Defendant Brahl’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(A) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
7. The Clerk of Court shall enter an award of $1.00 for the jury’s finding of liability, but no
award of compensatory or punitive damages, for the First Amendment retaliation claim
against Defendant Brahl.
8. A telephonic conference will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. to
discuss the scheduling of the anticipated re-trial on those claims that remain. Counsel
for Plaintiff is directed to initiate the call and connect chambers (267-299-7790) when
opposing counsel is on the line.
4
BY THE COURT:
/s/ David R. Strawbridge
DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?