LOPEZ McHUGH LLP
BY:
James J. McHugh, Jr. (ID 65809)
Michael S. Katz (ID 76119)
1123 Admiral Peary Way
Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Telephone: (215) 952-6910
Facsimile: (215) 952-6914

Filed and Attested by
PROTHONOTARY
10 MAR 2015 02:37 pm
D. SAVAGE

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
FRED CARBONARA and
TERESA GIANCATERINO h/w
Plaintiffs
v.
DREXEL UNIVERSITY
and
DOMENIC CECCANECCHIO
Individually and as an agent of
Drexel University
and
EDWARD SPANGLER
Individually and as an agent of
Drexel University
and
JAMES R. TUCKER
Individually and as an agent of
Drexel University
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

MARCH TERM 2015

NO. ____________________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Complaint and
hereby allege:

 THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiffs Fred Carbonara and Teresa Giancaterino are citizens and residents of

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 3159 Halsey Street, Philadelphia, PA.
2.

Defendant Drexel University is an educational institution with its offices and

principal place of business located at 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
3.

Drexel University constitutes an employer as defined by Pennsylvania’s

Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1422, because it is a corporation that receives money from a
“public body”, to wit: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has provided funding through the
Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Formula Tobacco Fund; the Pennsylvania Treasury Campus Energy Efficiency Fund; and direct
funding up to 2011 at a minimum, during which time the Commonwealth classified Drexel as a
“state-aided university.”
4.

Defendant Domenic Ceccanechio is an employee of Drexel University with an

office located at 3201 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA.
5.

At all relevant times, Drexel University was the employer of Mr. Ceccanechio,

the Vice President for Public Safety of Drexel University. Drexel is vicariously liable for those
acts and omissions of Mr. Ceccanechio that were performed while acting within the course and
scope of the employment relationship.
6.

Defendant Edward Spangler is a former employee of Drexel University.

7.

At all relevant times, Drexel University was the employer of Mr. Spangler, the

Chief of Police of the Drexel University Police Department. Drexel is vicariously liable for those
acts and omissions of Mr. Spangler that were performed while acting within the course and scope
of the employment relationship.

2

 8.

At all relevant times, Mr. Ceccanechio was the immediate supervisor of Mr.

Spangler and is vicariously liable for those acts and omissions of Mr. Spangler that were
performed while acting within the course and scope of the employment relationship.
9.

Defendant James R. Tucker is an employee of Drexel University with an office

located at 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.
10.

At all relevant times, Drexel University was the employer of Mr. Tucker, Senior

Vice President of Administrative and Business Services at Drexel University. Drexel is
vicariously liable for those acts and omissions of Mr. Tucker that were performed while acting
within the course and scope of the employment relationship.
11.

At all relevant times, Mr. Tucker was the immediate supervisor of Mr.

Ceccanechio and is vicariously liable for those acts and omissions of Mr. Ceccanechio and Mr.
Spangler that were performed while acting within the course and scope of the employment
relationship.
FACTS
12.

Drexel University employs its own police department.

13.

In 2007, Domenic Ceccanechio was hired as Drexel University’s Vice President

of Public Safety.
14.

Mr. Ceccanechio immediately exhibited animosity toward Plaintiff, insulting him

numerous times.
15.

Mr. Ceccanechio also complained that he believed Plaintiff was earning too much

16.

Complaining about a person’s salary is evidence of age discrimination.

money.

3

 17.

When Plaintiff attempted to bring formal disciplinary action against an officer

who disobeyed three direct orders between June 2011 and July 2011, Mr. Ceccanechio stated,
“Plaintiff is a dinosaur, old head, the way he was taught don’t work today.” This was evidence of
age discrimination.
UNEQUAL TREATMENT
18.

Plaintiff was treated unfairly by suffering administrative punishments and

ultimate termination for acts that could only be considered mistakes, whereas Mr. Ceccanechio
committed illegal acts but was never in danger of losing his job.
19.

For example, on or about November 28, 2008, a civilian lodged a complaint

against Mr. Ceccanechio. Mr. Ceccanechio, in an unmarked car, cut off the civilian’s vehicle and
pulled him over. Mr. Ceccanechio did not have any credentials that identified him as a police
officer, and he wrongly detained the civilian and called for “official” backup. This incident was
covered in the University City Neighbor publication. The complaint was swept under the rug by
the department.
20.

On or about August 5, 2011, Plaintiff requested permission from Chief Spangler

to file a complaint with Drexel’s Human Resources department with respect to the harassment by
Mr. Ceccanechio’s harassment. Chief Spangler threatened Plaintiff that he would be fired if he
took such action.
21.

On or about June 12, 2012, Mr. Ceccanechio arrested a black male for the sole act

of putting trash in a trash receptacle outside police headquarters. This was not an illegal act, but
the arrest certainly was. Charges were dropped, but again nothing was done to Mr. Ceccanechio.
22.

Ceccanechio directed the department’s officers to stop all blacks in hoodies, and

to stop any black youth on a bicycle.

4

 23.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Ceccanechio increased his efforts to remove

Plaintiff when Plaintiff objected to the aforementioned policy initiated by Mr. Ceccanechio and
other attempts at racial profiling.
24.

Mr. Ceccanechio directed that false information be reported under the Jeanne

Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, and he would
direct personnel to falsify records, including backdating paperwork, in order to comply with the
Act.
25.

Chief Spangler was a party to this misconduct.

26.

Drexel was delinquent in many standards set forth by the Commission on

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies Inc., and Mr. Ceccanechio would direct personnel
to falsify records, including backdating paperwork, in order to meet the Commission’s standards.
27.

Chief Spangler was a party to this misconduct.
WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION – THE JOHNSON INCIDENT

28.

Plaintiff refused to participate in the cover up and conspiracy of a racial incident

involving a man named Walter Johnson and was eventually terminated for this refusal.
29.

The incident regarding Walter Johnson occurred on December 30, 2011.

30.

On that date, a door alarm was received by a civilian dispatcher at Drexel

University. Via closed circuit TV, Mr. Johnson and another individual were seen walking in a
deliberate manner, attempting to open several doors of Drexel University buildings. They were
not carrying any items, such as screwdrivers or other tools.
31.

Drexel police officers arrived on the scene, causing Mr. Johnson and his

companion to flee.

5

 32.

Drexel University Police Officer Robert Allen was driving a Ford Explorer SUV

at the time. Upon seeing Mr. Johnson, he left the roadway and drove onto the sidewalk, then
struck Mr. Johnson with his vehicle. Mr. Johnson was badly injured.
33.

Drexel University Police Sergeant Santiago responded and became the ranking

officer at the scene of the crash. Neither before Sergeant Santiago arrived, nor at any time
following his arrival, was a crime scene established at the scene of the crash. Sergeant Santiago
testified that he did not recall having any conversations with anyone about setting up a crime
scene.
34.

None of the officers at the scene secured identifying information from various

civilians who were present. Some civilians were seen freely moving about the area in which the
Defendants claimed that physical evidence (two screwdrivers) was located. At no time during
any of the video footage does any physical evidence appear to be identified or recovered by
Drexel University Police Department personnel.
35.

The first recorded mention of a screwdriver came almost 42 minutes after the

initial call.
36.

At his deposition, Officer Allen acknowledged that he did not see the screwdriver

being dropped by Mr. Johnson and, in fact, remembers nothing of the recovery of the
screwdriver.
37.

Drexel University Police are obliged to contact the Philadelphia Police

Department to investigate a crime scene, incidents where deadly force have been used by a
Drexel University police officer, and automobile collisions where serious bodily injury occurs. In
addition, the Philadelphia Police Department will investigate accidents which may have been the
result of a deliberate act.

6

 38.

Drexel Police Officer Louis Gregg testified that he believed that a crime scene

should have been established and that Philadelphia police investigators should have taken over
the crime scene for further investigation. In fact, Officer Gregg so strongly assumed that
Philadelphia police should investigate that he promptly called the relevant Philadelphia detective
division to request a response. Philadelphia Police Lieutenant Marshmond stated that he was
going to bring two detectives and come to the scene.
39.

Sergeant Santiago learned that Drexel Police Officer Gregg contacted the

Philadelphia police and notified Drexel Police Chief Spangler that the Philadelphia Police
Department was about to intervene. Chief Spangler told Sergeant Santiago to rescind the call to
the Philadelphia police.
40.

Philadelphia Police Lieutenant Marshmond received a second call from Drexel

Police Officer Gregg. Officer Gregg informed Lieutenant Marshmond that he was no longer
needed. Lt. Marshmond testified at deposition that Officer Gregg appeared to be uncomfortable
or uneasy and did not want to give much information during the second phone call.
41.

Chief Spangler, who was hosting the senior commanders at his house on the night

in question, did not travel to the scene. His principal involvement was to instruct Sergeant
Santiago not to have the Philadelphia Police respond to the scene of the crash and to have
Santiago release Mr. Johnson’s companion rather than have Philadelphia Police arrest him,
because that would trigger their involvement in the investigation.
42.

When Chief Spangler was informed that the Philadelphia Police were not going to

respond to the scene based upon the information given by Sergeant Santiago, he did not follow
up.

7

 43.

Philadelphia Police Detective Theodore Manko ultimately responded on behalf of

the Philadelphia Police Department and took responsibility for the investigation and criminal
charging of Mr. Johnson and his companion. Detective Manko testified that the scene should
have been secured, that Drexel University Police Officer Allen’s vehicle should not have been
moved, and that screwdrivers allegedly recovered from the scene should have been left on the
ground and the scene preserved for forensic testing.
44.

Drexel police showed Detective Manko doors on the Drexel campus with

evidence of pry marks, and led him to believe that Mr. Johnson had attempted to pry open these
doors. However, Drexel police did not show Detective Manko any video of that occurring,
despite many closed circuit TVs set up across the campus. It was later determined that not a
single video showed Mr. Johnson using a screwdriver, let alone having one in his possession.
45.

An e-mail dated December 30, 2011 to Chief Spangler from Sergeant Santiago

indicated, among other things, that Drexel University Police Investigator Robert Lis contacted a
friend of his from the Philadelphia Police Department, Lt. Walker of the Southwest Detective
Division, and Lt. Walker “agreed to handle the job as an attempted burglary.”
46.

On January 6, 2012, Sergeant Santiago drafted an e-mail about the incident to

Drexel University Police Lt. Caristo, in which Sergeant Santiago set forth his conclusions that
Officer Allen violated Drexel’s Directive 25 for having failed to maintain control of his vehicle.
There was no reference to Directive 1—the Department’s Use of Force Directive—in the email.
Yet in a separate personnel file about this incident maintained by Chief Spangler, a copy of
Directive 1 was included with other case related paperwork and had apparently been reviewed by
Chief Spangler.

8

 47.

Mr. Johnson filed suit against Drexel and a number of individuals, including the

officers on location and all supervising personnel. This included Plaintiff, even though he was
not involved in the attempted cover up.
48.

All of the Drexel personnel were represented by a single attorney.

49.

Plaintiff was never told that he was a defendant in that case and never received a

reservation of rights letter from Drexel or their counsel.
50.

Plaintiff was never offered personal counsel.1

51.

Plaintiff was not prepared by Drexel’s counsel for his deposition.

52.

On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff was deposed during the litigation between Walter

Johnson and Drexel University. He refused to participate in the conspiracy to cover up the
misconduct of the Drexel Police Officers.
53.

Plaintiff testified that the manner in which Drexel Police Officer Allen used his

vehicle was reasonably likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.
54.

Plaintiff testified that a crime scene should have been secured at the crash site.

55.

Plaintiff testified that he had been told by Chief Spangler that, according to

Sergeant Santiago, Walter Johnson had only minor leg injuries. This was a lie to keep Plaintiff
from getting involved in the investigation.
ATTEMPTS TO JEOPARDIZE PLAINTIFF’S JOB
56.

Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in 2012. He injured his back but

did not claim injury. Instead, he used seven months of accumulated sick time and vacation time,
until he was well enough to return to work in March of 2013.

1

In the case at bar, Plaintiffs advise the individual Defendants to retain personal counsel.
9

 57.

Plaintiff’s physician wanted him on limited duty, but Plaintiff actually asked to be

cleared for full duty as Captain.
58.

Beginning in August of 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to street patrol to cover for a

sergeant who had been wrongfully terminated. This was done “out of rank”, because a lieutenant
should have been assigned this duty. Plaintiff was told that the reason was because Mr.
Ceccanechio was setting him up to fail.
59.

Plaintiff was stuck in a car 10 ½ hours a day, against doctor’s orders to keep

stretching his back due to injury.
60.

For approximately five months Plaintiff performed his duties as a captain while

filling in for the platoon’s lack of a sergeant.
61.

At times he would sit in his squad car, in an intentionally visible spot, doing

paperwork and phone work because he still had supervisory responsibilities.
62.

In September, when Chief Spangler was terminated/ostensibly resigned, Plaintiff

started taking on some of the chief’s duties.
63.

On December 12, 2013, while parked at 32nd and Baring (Drexel Park)—an

elevated location which offered a clear view of 31st and 32nd Street, Baring, Pearl, and Powlton
Avenue, a Drexel student took Plaintiff’s photograph while he was reclining in the squad car. He
was not sleeping, but was taking care of his back. According to Drexel’s Detective Lis, who
later interviewed the student, the student said he could not tell if Plaintiff had been asleep.
However, Mr. Ceccanechio said he would use this as a basis for termination.
64.

On December 29, 2013, Plaintiff was suffering from an abscessed tooth.

However, he could not take a sick day because he was the only supervisor scheduled to work that

10

 day (and the lieutenant had not been asked to work, again out of rank). Plaintiff kept to the
schedule despite the pain he suffered.
65.

At a time when the campus was closed for the holidays and the headquarters had

been empty all week, Plaintiff was working in his office and visited the men’s room. He placed
his handgun atop a trash can in order to adjust his equipment and wash his hands.
66.

Plaintiff accidentally left his weapon in the bathroom, something he attributed to

his diminished facilities due to pain from the abscessed tooth. He returned to his office just
down the hall, realized what had happened, and immediately went back to retrieve his weapon.
67.

Two employees had used the men’s room and saw the gun, and informed Plaintiff

about it. Plaintiff recovered it without incident.
68.

Plaintiff met with Drexel’s Jim Tucker to discuss the issues concerning Mr.

Ceccanechio. Mr. Tucker referred him to Human Resources.
69.

Plaintiff met with Human Resources’ Nadia McCrimmon on or about January 8,

10, and 13, 2014. He subsequently filed a hostile workplace complaint.
70.

On January 25, 2014, a Saturday evening, Plaintiff was injured during Drexel’s

Homecoming Concert. On January 27, 2014 he was diagnosed with injuries to his hips, back,
neck, shoulder, and leg.
71.

On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff showed up for work and was told to see the

Director of Operations, at which time he was forced to turn in his gun, keys, ID, uniform, and
phone.
72.

Plaintiff next saw Mr. Ceccanechio, who officially terminated him.

11

 BAD FAITH NEGOTIATION RE: SEVERANCE PACKAGE
73.

Mr. Ceccanechio had been directed to offer Plaintiff a three-month severance

package, but Mr. Ceccanechio did not tell Plaintiff this offer was available. Mr. Ceccanechio
then had Plaintiff escorted from the building to his car like a common criminal, despite eight
years of exemplary service to Drexel and 40 years in law enforcement.
74.

Plaintiff sought the assistance of undersigned counsel to negotiate a settlement

package.
75.

Plaintiff was eventually offered one year’s salary as a combination severance

package and workers compensation settlement prior to his having to give trial testimony in the
Johnson lawsuit.
76.

In anticipation of Plaintiff’s continued testimony in the Johnson suit, Plaintiff for

the first time was given separate counsel by Drexel.
77.

When undersigned counsel and Walter Johnson’s counsel agreed that Plaintiff’s

deposition did not need to go forward, Drexel revoked the separate counsel it had retained for
Plaintiff.
78.

Drexel told undersigned counsel that they could represent Plaintiff in the Johnson

matter, but would not receive compensation for their representation.
79.

When the Johnson suit settled and Plaintiff’s testimony was no longer required,

Defendants in bad faith lowered their offer to Plaintiff to nine months’ of salary to settle all
claims.
80.

As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff experienced substantial

economic damages, including loss of income and benefits.
81.

As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress.

12

 82.

As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered harm to his

professional reputation.
COUNT I
AGE DISCRIMINATION
PLAINTIFFS vs. DEFENDANTS DREXEL UNIVERSITY,
EDWARD SPANGLER AND DOMINIC CECCANECHIO
83.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.
84.

As mentioned hereinabove, Mr. Ceccanechio continuously discriminated against

Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff’s age, including referring to him as a “dinosaur”, an “old head”,
and saying he earned too much money.
85.

Mr. Ceccanechio’s discriminatory actions were sanctioned by Chief Spangler

and/or Drexel University.
86.

The age discrimination to which Plaintiff was subjected violated the Pennsylvania

Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951 et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly
and severally, for damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,
together with all lawful fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT II
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA WHISTLEBLOWER LAW
PLAINTIFFS vs. DEFENDANTS DREXEL UNIVERSITY
AND DOMINIC CECCANECHIO
87.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.

13

 88.

Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his refusal to follow Mr.

Ceccanechio’s racially motivated directives.
89.

Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his refusal to assist in the cover up of

the incident involving Walter Johnson.
90.

Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his testimony supporting Mr.

Johnson’s claims against Drexel.
91.

Defendants’ actions constituted violation of Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law,

43 P.S. § 1421 et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly
and severally, for damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,
together with all lawful fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT III
HARASSMENT AND INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
PLAINTIFFS vs. DEFENDANTS DREXEL UNIVERSITY
AND DOMINIC CECCANECHIO
92.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.
93.

The Defendants’ history of harassment and termination of Plaintiff was extreme

and outrageous conduct.
94.

The Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly at all times.

95.

The Defendants’ conduct caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly
and severally, for damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,

14

 together with all lawful fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT IV
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
PLAINTIFFS vs. DEFENDANT DOMINIC CECCANECHIO
96.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.
97.

Defendant Ceccanechio intentionally harassed Plaintiff in an attempt to force

Plaintiff to quit.
98.

Defendant Ceccanechio attempted to manufacture reasons to terminate Plaintiff’s

employment with Drexel University.
99.

Plaintiff and Drexel University were parties to an employment contract.

100.

Defendant Ceccanechio’s conduct was an attempt to force Plaintiff or Drexel to

breach its contract with the other party to that contract.
101.

Defendant Ceccanechio tortiously interfered with the employment contract

between Plaintiff and Drexel.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly
and severally, for damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,
together with all lawful fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
COUNT V
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
PLAINTIFFS vs. ALL DEFENDANTS
102.

At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Teresa Giancaterino was and is the wife of

Plaintiff Fred Carbonara.

15

 103.

As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff-wife Teresa Giancaterino has been

deprived, and will continue to be deprived for an indefinite period of time into the future, of the
companionship, consortium and society of her husband.
104.

As a further result of the negligence and other misconduct of the defendants,

Plaintiff-wife Teresa Giancaterino has suffered the loss of the value of her husband’s services,
some or all of which is expected to be permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, jointly
and severally, for damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court,
together with all lawful fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
LOPEZ McHUGH, LLP
By:

Dated: March 9, 2015

16

______/s/ Michael S. Katz____
James J. McHugh, Jr., Esquire
Michael S. Katz, Esquire
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that I am counsel for the Plaintiffs and that the statements made in the
foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

__/s/ Michael S. Katz________________
Michael S. Katz, Esq.
Date: March 9, 2015

17