Don Kovac v PTC Complaint

8/14/2019 Don Kovac v PTC Complaint

1/14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD KOVAC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE

COMMISSION, MITCHELL RUBIN,GEORGE HATALOWICH, MELVINSHELTON and MARK ROWE,

Defendants.

)))))))

)))))

Civil Action No.:

COMPLAINT

AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, by and through his a

Ronald D. Barber and Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, and

Complaint against the above-named Defendants, of which the follow

statement:

Parties

1. Plaintiff, Donald Kovac, is an adult individual residing

Grove Rd, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236.

2. Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC

independent commission organized and existing under the laws

Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 397 Filed 04/06/2009 Page


2/14

3. Defendant Mitchell Rubin was at all relevant times the Cha

the PTC. Rubin has since been removed from that post by the Go

Pennsylvania on grounds of participation in political corruption.

4. Defendant George Hatalowich was at all times relevant

Operating Officer of the PTC.

5. Defendant Melvin Shelton was at all times relevant a m

employee of the PTC.

6. Defendant Mark Rowe was at all times relevant the Busine

of Teamsters Union Local 77 (Local 77), the union representing emp

the PTCs Eastern Region.

Jurisdiction and Venue

7. This action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, for damag

based on the unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff by Defendants, and pur

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.

9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391

Background

10. From April 2005 till November 20, 2008, Plaintiff h



3/14

12. At the time of the events complained of herein, Patricia

was nominally Plaintiffs immediate supervisor.

13. One of Plaintiffs responsibilities was to investigate and d

second step of the contractual grievance procedure involving union emp

the PTC.

14. At the PTC, the unwritten rule was that PTC union employ

had favored political connections would be afforded favorable treatme

second step of the grievance procedure favorable treatment that

available to other employees. This was a pattern, practice and policy of

was known to and actively supported and maintained by the

Defendants as well as other PTC decisionmakers.

15. In mid-2008, Plaintiff was asked to investigate and hear a

from the termination of employment of a PTC District #4 Toll Collecto

OReilly, stemming from an alleged dispute with a motorist.

16. The alleged dispute between OReilly and the moto

particularly egregious in that OReilly had allegedly assaulted the moto

PTC was in possession of video footage of the assault. The vi

threatened to provide the video to news media if the employee w

terminated.

17. OReillys termination was appealed to Plaintiff by Local 77



4/14

19. During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Melvin

directed Plaintiff to reinstate OReilly in keeping with the PTC pat

practice and not because the facts warranted such reinstatement.

20. During the pendency of the appeal, Defendant Mark Rowe

Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be fired if he did not reinstate OReilly.

21. Plaintiff did not allow the threats of his terminati

employment to influence his decision to terminate OReilly, but did a

employer of the existence of the threats.

22. On information and belief, Defendant Rowe as business

the union demanded of Defendant Shelton to have Plaintiff fired in reta

Plaintiffs disloyalty in speaking out about and in deciding the OReilly ap

23. On information and belief, Defendant Shelton communicat

demands to Defendant Rubin, who in turn contacted Defendant Hatalo

instructed him to fire Plaintiff.

24. On information and belief, all of the individual defendants k

intended that Plaintiffs termination was in retaliation for Plaintiffs disloy

conspired and agreed among themselves to bring about Plaintiffs firing.

25. Shortly after the OReilly termination, Plaintiffs work sche

work locations were changed in a manner that adversely affected Plaintif

26. On November 20, 2008, as Plaintiff was driving on Pen



5/14

27. Plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his refusal to reinstate t

PTC employee and for his whistle-blowing on PTCs prejudicial and

favoritism of its union employees.

28. Prior to the retaliation, Plaintiff had an impeccable em

record with the PTC and had been an exemplary employee.

29. Subsequent to Plaintiffs termination, and upon informa

belief, Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs rightful re

unemployment compensation, as further retaliation for Plaintiffs exerci

First Amendment rights.

COUNT I 42 U.S.C. 1983

30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-29 as though

forth herein at length.

31. Defendants, under color of State law, and in violation of

First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and in further violation of Sect

of the Civil Rights Act, and in retaliation for Plaintiffs exercise of

Amendment right of freedom of speech and association, wrongfully te

Plaintiff as set forth above.

32. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth above, amount

unlawful retaliation for the exercise of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights



6/14

33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct as

above, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and has sustained damages

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

Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against De

compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and a

fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and prop

COUNT II Violation of Pennsylvanias Whistleblower L

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 33 as though fully

herein at length.

34. Plaintiff is entitled to protection and relief under Penns

Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. 1421 et seq.

35. Plaintiffs firing was in retaliation for his good faith report to

that OReilly should be terminated, a report that was in direct contravent

PTCs unethical policy of favoritism towards its union employees co

Teamsters Local No. 77.



7/14

37. The conduct of Defendants as set forth above wa

intentional, egregious, and designed to cause Plaintiff damages.

38. As the direct and proximate consequence of the De

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

Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against De

compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs and a

fees along with such additional relief as this Court deems fitting and prop

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED

STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNI& GEFSKY

By: /s/ Ronald D. BarberRonald D. BarberPa. ID No. 52734

Suite 2200Four Gateway Center444 Liberty AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15222

(412) 281-5423



8/14

Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 397-2 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 2


9/14


C


10/14


C 2 05 02025 D t 397 4 Fil d 04/06/2009 P 1 f 1


11/14


Case 2:05 mc 02025 Document 397 5 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 1


12/14




13/14




14/14


Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jmicek
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Don Kovac v PTC Complaint

Documents