NCambria mayor, trooper answer suit
Borough council seeks to dismiss complaint brought by former police chief
The mayor of Northern Cambria Borough and a State Police trooper have joined with Borough Council in seeking the dismissal of a federal civil rights complaint brought by the borough’s former police chief, Derek Stitt.
The chief resigned July 22, 2024, after stating in a letter to the council that he had tried to resolve what he called “hostile work conditions” created by Mayor Lisa Tomallo Mays, but said his efforts failed.
“Unfortunately, the conditions have not only failed to improve but have significantly worsened. I have been subjected to an unlawful suspension and denied my 14th Amendment rights to hear the allegations against me and to defend myself against this fraudulent investigation,” he stated in his resignation letter.
“The level of erroneous and illegal activity within the county (Cambria) and the borough is deeply disturbing,” Stitt charged.
The veteran officer, who was hired following a 20-year career with the McKeesport police, stated it was an “honor and privilege” to serve the Northern Cambria community, but he also explained he felt “compelled to step down due to ongoing concerns about harassment and unfounded allegations which have unfairly tarnished my otherwise impeccable career as a law enforcement officer.”
In September, he filed a civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown contending the mayor, council and Trooper Mark A. Galli of the Ebensburg barracks conspired “with a common goal to willfully deprive Chief Stitt of clearly established rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, whereby (Stitt) was actually injured in his person and property.”
He claimed in the lawsuit he was constructively discharged (forced to resign due to hostile working conditions) and that not only were his civil rights violated in the process, but the seven-member council violated Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law and breached his three-year contract to serve as police chief.
He is seeking money damages that include back pay, front pay, as well as punitive damages.
In November, the borough council answered the lawsuit and asked District Judge Stephanie L. Haines to dismiss it.
Council maintained that the facts do not support the claim that he was forced to resign, or that there was a conspiracy among officials to force him out.
The council maintained it stood up for Stitt and that his primary beef was with the Mayor Mays.
The brouhaha begins
The tension between Mays and Stitt began in November 2023 when the mayor, who, under the Borough Code, is in charge of the police department, instructed Stitt to assign a sergeant to serve as a school resource officer for the Northern Cambria School District.
The chief objected, pointing out the sergeant was the department’s only female officer, and the only certified K-9 officer.
He noted also that the sergeant had not completed training to be a school resource officer.
The officer also filed a grievance against her purported change in responsibility — which Stitt supported.
The grievance was eventually withdrawn when the former resource officer agreed not to retire.
Stitt in his lawsuit contended that Mays “responded to the grievance with hostility.”
Following the grievance issue, several other events occurred.
Mays allegedly objected to the use of the department’s 2020 Ford Explorer by the sergeant and she and her sister were allegedly seen photographing the sergeant and her K-9 vehicle.
The lawsuit claimed Mays was not previously involved in assigning the use of the police vehicles.
The mayor also demanded access to the security cameras used throughout the borough.
She also made changes in the scheduling of officers, which according to the lawsuit caused the chief extra work.
On Jan. 4, 2024, Council addressed the deteriorating relationship between the mayor and the police officers, and warned the mayor she was facing public censure for her behavior.
Mays then sought a court injunction to enjoin council from interfering with her governance of the police department.
A Cambria County judge rejected her request for a preliminary injunction.
In the meantime, Trooper Mark Galli, who worked with Mays’ husband at the Ebensburg barracks, arrived at the Northern Cambria department to investigate an alleged theft of a firearm from the evidence room.
Galli also interviewed a councilman about the theft.
Stitt prepared an incident report about the visit to the councilman because the Trooper’s message to the councilman was “let the mayor do her job.”
Stitt referred the gun investigation to the FBI and Galli’s actions for state police internal review.
In May of last year, the mayor indicated Stitt had to attend a meeting, but Stitt said he could not attend because he was working a night shift. Mays then suspended Stitt without pay for one day.
In June, the chief was again suspended for 10 days due to his “yelling and rude remarks.”
His suspension then was extended indefinitely, which led to his resignation.
Just before Christmas, Pittsburgh attorneys Teresa O. Sirianni and Connor Riley filed an answer to the lawsuit, contending Stitt’s First Amendment rights were not violated.
For instance, Stitt defended his sergeant’s right to grieve the mayor’s order that she become a school resource officer.
But, Mays’ defense team answered, contending speech of a public employee is protected only when he speaks as a citizen, but not when speaking “within the scope of his employment.”
Stitt, in discussing the school resource issue, was speaking in his official capacity as the chief, the defense claims, thus his speech was not protected.
The chief also spoke out against Mays’ injunction request — the defense again contending it was not protected speech.
Stitt contended his contact with the FBI was also protected under the First Amendment. The defense again argued his contact with the FBI was within the scope of his employment and not protected speech.
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights not violated
The defense also argued that Stitt’s right to due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were not valid legal issues in this case because “it was his choice to resign, and any consequences from that voluntary action cannot be attributed to defendant Mays,” the Mays defense team stated.
“Plaintiff was not forced to resign by coercion or duress,” the defense continued
The petition also addressed Stitt’s claim that there was a conspiracy by Mays, Galli and other members of the community to oust him.
The charges by the former chief amounts to only “barebone assertions.”
“(Stitt) has not been deprived of any Civil Rights,” according to the Mays defense team.
“As to Trooper Galli, (Stitt) does not allege any fact that suggests a meeting of the minds between Trooper Galli and defendant Mays,” the defense concluded.
Galli, represented by Deputy Attorney General Amelia J. Goodrich, charged that Stitt “… only engages in hypotheses buttressed by vague and conclusory allegations, void of specifics.”
“Thus, plaintiff has not sufficiently or plausibly stated the personal involvement of defendant Galli in a civil rights conspiracy against plaintiff,” according to the Galli defense.
Both defense petitions request the Stitt civil rights lawsuit be dismissed.
It will be up to Judge Haines to decide if Stitt’s lawsuit can move forward.