ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh poised to pay 2 officers $33,500 to settle grievances

Bob Bauder
| Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2018, 5:21 p.m.

Pittsburgh would pay two police officers a total of $33,500 to settle grievances alleging the city prevented them from working off-duty details to earn extra money.

The settlement agreements are subject to Pittsburgh City Council approval. Council on Tuesday introduced legislation authorizing payments of $18,500 to Sgt. Lynn Kohnfelder and $15,000 to Officer Raymond Toomey.

“The city took actions where these officers lost the ability to work secondary employment,” said Robert Swartzwelder, president of Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge 1. “We grieved it, and we won.”

Swartzwelder would not discuss the actions taken by the city.

Tim McNulty, spokesman for Mayor Bill Peduto, declined to comment. The Public Safety Department referred questions to solicitor Lourdes Sanchez Ridge, who could not be reached.

The police bureau, Pittsburgh Office of Municipal Investigations and the Citizens Police Review Board investigated Toomey last year after a video clip showed him kicking a suspect in the head during an arrest outside a South Side bar.

According to a criminal complaint, Nathan Stanley III, 27, of New Castle was drunk May 7 and threatened to shoot a security guard at the Flats Bar. He allegedly threatened to shoot Toomey when the officer attempted to arrest him.

Police found no gun on Stanley, who is awaiting trial on charges of aggravated assault, terroristic threats, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public drunkenness.

The city restricted Toomey to desk duty after the incident.

Details about why Kohnfelder was prevented from working off-duty details were not available.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, or via Twitter @bobbauder.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me