ShareThis Page
Allegheny

Lawsuit: Rivers Casino employees snooped on texts, email, bank info

Megan Guza
| Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2018, 4:03 p.m.
Customers at Rivers Casino on Pittsburgh's North Shore, shown here Tuesday, June 30, 2015, play on the gaming floor. Year-over-year growth that saw Pennsylvania rocket up the list of the nation’s most profitable casino industries has come to an end. For the fourth consecutive year, casino gambling revenues will come in around $3.1 billion — still good enough to rank the state No. 2 in the country,al though that could change as New York builds new casinos over the next few years.
Andrew Russell | Trib Total Medi
Customers at Rivers Casino on Pittsburgh's North Shore, shown here Tuesday, June 30, 2015, play on the gaming floor. Year-over-year growth that saw Pennsylvania rocket up the list of the nation’s most profitable casino industries has come to an end. For the fourth consecutive year, casino gambling revenues will come in around $3.1 billion — still good enough to rank the state No. 2 in the country,al though that could change as New York builds new casinos over the next few years.

Employees at Rivers Casino zoomed in on the cell phones of two women on the casino floor, capturing text messages, emails and bank account information and sending it to one woman’s ex-husband and his attorney, lawsuits filed last week alleged.

The dual lawsuits, filed in the Court of Common Pleas by Julie Capone and Hayley Clerici, targeted the company that owns the casino, three unnamed employees, attorney Dennis McCurdy, and Clerici’s ex-husband, Allegheny County police homicide detective Scott Scherer.

The three unnamed employees are alleged to have worked with or supervised the casino’s surveillance and security system and illegally turned over the footage of Clerici and Capone.

The lawsuits alleged that the casino violated the state’s wiretap law by zooming in on security footage to read their text messages, emails and, in Clerici’s case, her bank account information when she accessed her mobile-banking app and when she used a casino ATM.

The court filing noted that McCurdy represented Scherer in a custody dispute with Clerici.

According to the lawsuit, McCurdy subpoenaed security footage of Clerici and “any associates” – in this case, Capone — in the casino from Sept. 21 and 22, specifically close-up footage which allegedly showed the private text messages and emails.

A spokesman for the casino said Rivers management declined to comment on pending litigation. Neither McCurdy nor Scherer could be immediately reached for comment.

The lawsuit argued that the women had a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly regarding personal text messages and emails, which were sent privately to specific people and intended only for those individuals.

Clerici alleged that McCurdy shared the text, email and banking information with her ex-husband, who in turn “intentionally disclosed some or all of those messages/emails/personal financial information,” according to the lawsuit.

The suit alleged the casino, employees, McCurdy and Scherer violated the state wiretap law by intercepting and then disclosing the private texts and emails. All the defendants were also charged with invasion of privacy.

The lawsuit accused Scherer of intentionally inflicting emotional distress, alleging the texts and emails involved “private, sensitive matters,” including information regarding personal relationships and personal finances. Scherer’s “extreme and outrageous” conduct was meant to harass and embarrass the women, according to the suit.

Both women are asking for damages in excess of $35,000, as well as a jury trial.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, mguza@tribweb.com or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

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.

click me