Fired Allegheny County chief public defender sues for wrongful termination

Allegheny County’s former chief public defender is suing the county manager for wrongful termination.

The complaint, filed by Lena Bryan-Henderson on Wednesday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court against John Fournier, seeks reinstatement and back wages.

Bryan-Henderson, 60, of Forest Hills said she had no comment on the lawsuit, which alleges her termination was both procedurally defective and discriminatory.

A county spokeswoman also declined comment.

The lawsuit does not explicitly make a claim of racial discrimination, but Bryan-Henderson, the first Black woman to hold the position, said in the complaint while 65% of the jail population is Black, only seven of the 97 attorneys in the office were Black.

Bryan-Henderson is claiming only the county executive has the right to terminate the chief public defender.

Appointed on Jan. 22, 2024, Bryan-Henderson was placed on administrative leave on April 7 and fired May 14 by Fournier following a weekslong human resources investigation.

When asked whose decision it was to terminate Bryan-Henderson, the complaint said, Fournier’s response was “that he alone made the decision.”

Bryan-Henderson’s salary was $140,415.

The report on the termination has not been released publicly, but Bryan-Henderson sent a letter to her supporters shortly after her removal in which she listed some of the allegations against her, including whether she had asked people questions about their gender at birth or if “pregnancy makes women ‘dumber.’”

The 19-page lawsuit does not shed any additional light on the complaints made against Bryan-Henderson, but does address what precipitated them.

Bryan-Henderson started working in the public defender’s office in 1991, but the complaint alleges that when she took over, she was not put in a position to be successful.

“The younger, predominantly white, senior leadership in the office was not supportive of her selection,” the lawsuit said.

The complaint notes several deputy directors interviewed for the position and questioned County Executive Sara Innamorato’s decision that Bryan-Henderson was qualified.

“As a result of this hostility, Ms. Bryan-Henderson was not provided with training or guidance by those in senior leadership positions,” the complaint said.

The lawsuit also alleges she was not permitted to appoint her own deputies — which was not the norm in prior administrations.

Instead, she was directed to hire Andy Howard to serve as her chief deputy.

Bryan-Henderson alleges that during her 14-month tenure she attempted to correct deficiencies in the office but got backlash from subordinates. She claimed tensions mounted when she began having difficulties with an office manager whom she hired.

The lawsuit lists a variety of minor instances in which Bryan-Henderson and the office manager had conflict, including allegations that he left early without permission and that he refused to take notes for her while attending meetings.

The complaint alleges that Bryan-Henderson spoke several times to county human resources about the situation with the office manager regarding his “insubordination and disrespectful attitude.”

Then, on Feb. 6 — the day she told him he needed to ask permission to leave his post in the middle of the day — “12 fabricated anonymous complaints” were filed against Bryan-Henderson, the complaint said.

Of those, five were from deputy directors.

“[T]he 12 complainants decided to bring their complaints together as a group in an effort to forcibly remove Ms. Bryan-Henderson,” the lawsuit said.

The complaints against her included that Bryan-Henderson treated Black attorneys more favorably than white attorneys, despite the complaint noted, that fewer than 10% of the attorneys in the office were Black.

On the day she was terminated, the complaint said, she received a heavily redacted report outlining the conclusion of the county’s investigation.

It cited 12 anonymous complaints out of a staff of 144 full-time employees.

“The report is rife with factual inaccuracies, absurd conclusions and slanderous, uncorroborated accusations,” the lawsuit said. “The substance of the report amounts to little more than pretext.”