Settlement reached in officer's dog suit
Penn Township tentatively has reached a settlement with a township police officer who sued to receive overtime pay for the at-home care of his now-retired police dog, federal court records show.
Attorneys for the township and officer Ross Piraino informed U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon last week that they reached an agreement. Court records did not list the details of the settlement, which commissioners will consider for approval at their Jan. 16 meeting.
“We will be releasing those (details) at the meeting next Wednesday,” Manager Bruce Light said.
Piraino's attorneys, Solomon Krevsky and Robert A. Jones, and the attorney for the township, Bernard Matthews, did not return messages requesting comment about the settlement.
In Piraino's suit, the officer said he wasn't compensated for maintaining, training and caring for the German shepherd. Township officials took the dog out of service last January after three years on the job and sold him to Piraino for $1.
Piraino said he was entitled to payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act for providing food and water, grooming and veterinary care for the dog.
Police Chief John Otto has said the dog had some issues with aggressive and inappropriate responses to commands. The dog was the only one affiliated with the department.
Otto has said he would be interested in resuming the police-dog program in the township. Commissioners included $4,500 in the 2013 police budget for a police-dogprogram.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400 ext. 8671 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.