A Pennsylvania appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of a Pittsburgh police sergeant who claimed he was wrongly transferred out of his specialty unit as a form of discipline.
Sgt. Brian Elledge, who served as the night shift supervisor, was transferred out of the department’s motorcycle division July 11, 2023, shortly after a Black officer in the unit claimed he was receiving less desirable work assignments.
The transfer, Elledge said, included no explanation.
He and his union, the Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, filed a grievance against the city the next day alleging it violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Union officials, according to court filings, said they do not normally grieve an involuntary transfer but that this one was egregious.
Elledge separately filed a federal lawsuit against the city and former Pittsburgh police Chief Larry Scirotto alleging reverse discrimination in March. It remains pending.
In the arbitration proceedings, the city argued it had the right under its “managerial prerogative” to make transfers and Elledge’s transfer was made for the “good of the bureau.”
Scirotto testified numerous complaints had been made by officers in the unit against Elledge and that the unit needed a different supervisor. His job, Scirotto said, was to make sure there was a productive and safe working environment in the unit.
But Elledge and two of his supervisors testified the officer who complained about his work assignments had a poor work ethic and was often late to work.
At arbitration, the union sought Elledge’s return to his prior position, back pay for lost overtime, as well as shift differential and secondary employment.
The city asked for the grievance to be dismissed.
The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union, finding the city failed to establish evidence to support its argument.
He called the city’s “good of the bureau” argument “pretext,” and said Elledge’s transfer was made in an “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner.”
The arbitrator ordered the city to reinstate Elledge and restore his lost earnings, although not lost overtime or secondary pay.
The city appealed to Common Pleas Court, which ruled in the union’s favor in March 2025.
It then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction.
In its 23-page opinion Thursday, the appellate court disagreed with the city, finding the arbitrator had “wide latitude” to address any issue properly before him.
“It is the arbitrator’s prerogative to accept or reject testimony and to evaluate credibility of witnesses,” the court wrote.
A message left with the city seeking comment was not returned.
