Philadelphia City Hall. Photo: Jon Bilous/Shutterstock.com

A former Philadelphia court official who used $73,000 of the court's money to pay off her son's debt won't be collecting a city pension, a federal judge has ruled.

Deborah Dailey formerly served as the First Judicial District's chief deputy prothonotary until her firing and guilty plea on a third-degree felony theft charge in 2014 for using a court credit card to pay bills for her son.

According to U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's Oct. 2 opinion, Dailey sought her pension after paying back the money she stole but was denied by the city's pension board.

The reason? Stealing from the city constitutes "malfeasance in office or employment," which disqualifies someone from collecting a pension, according to the Philadelphia Public Employees Retirement Code.

Although Dailey pleaded guilty in 2015 to "theft of movable property by unlawful taking or disposition," she filed lawsuits in state and federal court arguing that sections of the retirement code disqualifying employees from benefits for theft, ­embezzlement, illegally taking money, or engaging in malfeasance while in office are vague and do not apply to the court system.

"Plaintiff has never, in any court, pled guilty or no defense to or been finally found guilty of theft, embezzlement, willful misapplication, or other illegal taking of funds or property of the city, or those of any official agency of the city, or agency, engaged in performing any governmental function for the city or the commonwealth," her complaint said. "The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania is not 'the city' within the meaning of the code."

But neither court was swayed by Dailey's argument, Kearney said.

"The state appellate court defined the 'malfeasance' as including her admitted theft and upheld her pension ineligibility," Kearney said. "Finding we may decide the issues under federal law, we hold the 'malfeasance' language is not void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment and the loss of the full pension net of her contributions is not an improper forfeiture under the Eighth Amendment, an improper taking under the Fifth Amendment, or an arbitrary deprivation of property and excessive punitive sanction under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Dailey's lawyer, Nicholas Romeu of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, did not respond to a request for comment.

The First Judicial District declined to comment.

Dailey started working in the Philadelphia court system as a stenographer in 1979. She worked there for 34 years, eventually rising to the position of chief deputy prothonotary and clerk of court.

She claimed that since turning 55 in 2016, she became eligible for $78,000 per year in retirement benefits, which would amount to more than $2.3 million over the next 30 years.