Pittsburgh police veteran sues union for alleged discrimination, retaliation
A Brighton Heights woman claims in a federal lawsuit filed Saturday that the union representing the Pittsburgh police discriminated against her because of her disability and race and retaliated against her when she filed a discrimination claim.
Cathy Thomas-Taylor, 46, claims Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 of the Fraternal Order of Police refused to file several grievances for her when she was in a long-running dispute with the city over the pay and benefits she thought she should receive while recovering from a back injury. Thomas-Taylor was a police officer for 20 years, but was unable to collect her pension because of the union's actions, the lawsuit says.
She also has a pending lawsuit against the city for alleged race and sex discrimination. Court records show that she and the city have a tentative settlement in that case but don't provide any details.
The lawsuit against the union seeks the wages and benefits she allegedly lost from the union failing to adequately represent her in her claims against the city as well as punitive damages.
Bryan Campbell, the lawyer for the FOP, said he hasn't seen the lawsuit yet and declined comment.
Show commenting policy
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.