Share This Page

Discrimination lawsuit against Pittsburgh police union, city thrown out

| Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, 11:54 p.m.

The Pittsburgh police union and the city did not discriminate against a former officer, a federal judge ruled in throwing out a lawsuit.

Cathy Thomas-Taylor, 49, of Brighton Heights, claimed in the lawsuit that Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 discriminated against her because of her disability and race and retaliated against her when she filed a discrimination claim.

Thomas-Taylor, who is black, said the union refused to file several grievances for her when she was in a long-running dispute with the city over the pay and benefits she said she should receive while recovering from a back injury.

“None of the alleged retaliatory acts was sufficiently close in time to the protected activity to permit an inference of retaliatory animus,” U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti said in Monday's ruling.

Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

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 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.