Trooper: Police Response to Harassment Was Inadequate
In March 2013, plaintiff Rachel Jones, in her early 20s, began working as a trooper for the Pennsylvania State Police, in Trevose. In June, she and trooper Craig Acord started dating. They ended their relationship a year later.
February 15, 2018 at 04:43 PM
4 minute read
By The Legal Intelligencer
Jones v. Pennsylvania State Police
$250,000 Verdict
Date of Verdict: Dec, 21, 2017.
Court and Case No.: U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
Judge: Wendy Beetlestone.
Type of Action: Civil Rights, Title VII.
Injuries: Mental and emotional distress.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Brian M. Puricelli, Law Offices of Brian M. Puricelli, Newtown.
Defense Counsel: Megan K. Kampf, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia.
Comment:
In March 2013, plaintiff Rachel Jones, in her early 20s, began working as a trooper for the Pennsylvania State Police, in Trevose. In June, she and trooper Craig Acord started dating. They ended their relationship a year later.
Jones asserted that, a month after their breakup, Acord began sending her multiple text messages asking if they could resume dating and if they could meet over dinner. Acord allegedly pursued her by sending her gifts and flowers, from July 2014 to February 2015. This prompted Jones to notify a corporal about Acord's conduct.
In May 2015, Acord allegedly approached Jones in the patrol room and kissed her on the neck without her permission. In June, Acord allegedly took a picture of himself next to Jones when her back was toward the camera. This prompted her to again tell a corporal of the situation, and the corporal informed Sergeant Mike Tinneny, who met with Jones that day.
She told him about Acord's kiss in the patrol room and his inappropriate picture. After the conversation, Tinneny met with Acord, told him to have no contact with her, and sent him home.
A few days later, Acord met with Tinneny, a lieutenant, and a captain. During this meeting, the supervisors made a notation on Acord's record and advised him to cease contact with Jones unless it was necessary to complete a job assignment. Acord's failure to abide by the restriction could result in disciplinary actions, including termination. Acord signed the notation. Jones and Acord's work schedules were then changed so the two would not have contact.
Jones asserted that, despite the measures taken against Acord, he allegedly continued to communicate with her through the police email system and continued to show up at her barracks. In November 2015, Jones filed another complaint to Tinneny when she discovered that Acord had been sitting in a patrol car in a 7-11 store parking lot located a half-mile from her home. The parking lot was not in a zone patrolled by the state troopers. An investigation was conducted, and Acord was transferred to another barracks. In December, Jones filed for a protection from abuse order which resulted in Acord's termination; he was later reinstated through a collective bargaining agreement.
Jones sued the state police, Tinneny, and Acord, alleging a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 Act.
Jones settled with Acord for an undisclosed amount, prior to trial.
Jones' counsel argued that the state police and Tinneny created a hostile work environment by failing to take prompt and adequate remedial action upon learning that Jones was sexually harassed by Acord.
The state police maintained that Jones' allegations against Acord had been properly addressed once Tinneny and others learned about the incidents, and that Jones should have immediately contacted her supervisors of Acord's actions, instead of waiting.
Jones, who continues to work as a trooper in Philadelphia, testified how the incidents with Acord were traumatic and interfered with her professional and personal life. She asserted that she would use sick days and come into work early in order to avoid Accord. Jones sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The jury found that the Pennsylvania State Police created a hostile work environment. Jones was determined to receive $250,000.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents. Defendants' counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readDe-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Risk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250