A federal district judge has given the go-ahead to the former police chief of Northern Cambria Borough to pursue much of his lawsuit against the borough’s mayor, Lisa Tomallo Mays and Borough Council — the people he claims created an “intolerable” working environment that forced his resignation.

Derek Stitt, who was hired as police chief of the borough in 2021, after a 20-year career with the McKeesport Police Department, argues in his civil rights lawsuit that the council “knowingly permitted unprofessional behaviors by Mays and others that made Stitt’s conditions of employment so intolerable that a reasonable person would resign under similar conditions.”

In her opinion issued last week, United States District Judge Stephanie L. Haines of Johnstown rejected attempts by borough officials to have his lawsuit dismissed.

One of the main issues raised by Stitt was that the Borough Council breached its contract with him by allowing Mays to suspend him for 41 days without pay.

That issue, the judge pointed out, led to Stitt’s “constructive discharge.”

Borough Council pointed out that it wrote a disciplinary letter to Mays on Jan. 4, 2024, concerning her ongoing conflict with Stitt, but Haines still rejected dismissal of the breach-of-

contract argument, stating, “a plausible claim for constructive discharge exists.”

A constructive discharge is the definition of an employee who is forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions.

Stitt resigned his position on July 22, 2024.

Attorney Benjamin E. Orsatti of Sewickley filed the federal civil rights complaint on behalf of Stitt on Aug. 31, 2024.

The lawsuit listed the borough, Mays and Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Mark Galli as defendants.

One of the charges in the action is that Galli participated in a civil conspiracy with the council and mayor to deprive Stitt of his civil rights.

Haines concluded that, “While Stitt has established tenuous connections between Mays, the Borough, and Galli, he fails to plead any facts that would support the defendants had an agreement to usurp his civil rights.”

She dismissed the conspiracy charge and she ordered that Galli be dismissed from the case.

Galli became involved in the brouhaha due to his investigation of a firearm that was taken from the department’s evidence room.

As it turned out, a Northern Cambria police officer had purchased the gun involved in the investigation.

On Feb. 14, 2024, a member of the Borough Council was visited by Galli at his home and was asked about a firearm that the councilman was holding for a former Northern Cambria officer.

According to the judge’s description of the visit, Galli “perp-walked” the member of council twice while in the living room — as if he was going to arrest him.

At the end of the hourlong interrogation, Galli, who is stationed in Ebensburg, didn’t mention the alleged missing gun, but instead allegedly advised the councilman, “You and the council need to let the mayor do her job … The council and Chief Stitt are corrupt.”

Galli, it is alleged in the lawsuit, instructed the councilman to lie about the purpose of his visit.

Stitt was informed by the councilman about the visit and prepared an incident report.

Haines, in her 17-page opinion, touched on many other issues raised in the Stitt lawsuit.

The judge explained that the dispute between the chief and the mayor began on Nov. 13, 2023.

Mays, it is charged, directed Stitt to reassign Sgt. Tonya Marshall, a K9 officer, as a school resource officer.

Marshall filed a grievance, noting she was not trained for school duty. Mays then wanted Stitt to become the school resource officer, but he refused, noting he, too, lacked the proper training.

He also verbally supported Marshall’s grievance.

It is then charged that Mays told a grievance representative that the chief and Marshall were in a romantic relationship, which both denied.

That alleged false relationship ended up being discussed by officers at a council meeting on Dec. 11, 2023.

It also led to a Council Conflict Resolution meeting, which Mays did not attend, but, according to the lawsuit, Mays was seen circling the borough building in her car.

After that, Mays ceased inviting Stitt to “Chiefs meetings.”

But on May 20, 2024, Mays ordered him to attend such a meeting. He refused to attend, stating he was covering a shift for the sergeant, who was undergoing training that night.

Mays suspended him without pay.

She continued his unpaid suspension for allegedly “yelling crude remarks at the borough manager.”

Stitt complained in his lawsuit that his due process rights were violated by his continued suspensions.

Mays also filed a request for a preliminary injunction seeking a court order enjoining council from interfering with her authority as the chief law enforcement officer of the borough.

A Cambria County judge denied the injunction.

Another issue, Stitt argued, was that Mays and council violated his right to free speech — for instance, his supporting Marshall’s grievance involved in the school resource officer dispute.

The former chief indicated his right to free speech, whether he is speaking as a public citizen or as a government employee, is protected.

“This Court (the federal court) has repeatedly found that public employees’ criticism of the internal operations of their places of public employment is a matter of public concern,” Haines emphasized.

She reported the public “has a significant interest in encouraging legitimate whistleblowing.”

While there are many questions still to be answered by a jury, Haines rejected the defendants’ request to deny Stitt’s claim that his free speech rights were violated.

She also denied defense requests to dismiss his claim that his due process rights had been violated by both Mays and the council.

Stitt also has a “property interest” in his contract with the borough, the judge ruled.

The former chief contends his rights under Pennsylvania Whistleblower were violated due to his constructive discharge.

Haines refused to dismiss his Whistleblower claim.

And, Mays, in her defense, contended that her actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, meaning she is protected from lawsuits when acting in her position.

But Haines explained that she found “plausible claims” for violations of Stitt’s rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

“Whether those rights were clearly established when Mays engaged in her alleged misconduct is a matter for the fact-finder. The Court finds that at this time Mays may not rely on the defense of qualified immunity,” Haines wrote.

Northern Cambria Borough is represented by Pittsburgh attorneys Sarah Cobbs, Katrin M. Romano and Suzanne B. Merrick.

Attorneys Connor M. Riley and Teresa O. Sirianni of Pittsburgh represent Mays.