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
© 2025 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 All![Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/09/Lackawanna-County-Courthouse-767x633-4.jpg)
Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client
3 minute read![Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/23/32/48b6e7ed401f93d28fc3749c6e06/dominos-pizza-restaurant-06-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash
4 minute read![Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/9a/da/617cb4a34572855dd2a37efe2b77/larry-ashery-767x633.jpg)
Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits
3 minute read![Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/40/79/7bec225547e79ddc40b0b1045f87/mckinley-chapman-767x633.jpg)
Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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