Lawsuit filed by former Leet police chief against the township dismissed
Share this post:
A lawsuit, filed by former Leet police Chief Michael Molinaro against the township seeking more than $404,000 for what he called a breach of contract, has been dismissed.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Mary McGinley dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back to court, on April 24.
Molinaro, a Leet officer since 2013 and chief since March 2021, was fired on July 25, 2022, at a township commissioners’ workshop meeting.
The termination was ratified at an Aug. 6, 2022, township commissioners’ regular voting session following scrutiny about how commissioners handled the situation the previous month.
According to the court filing, Molinaro’s job as chief was via an agreement through March 8, 2026.
Court documents show that figure is based on hourly wages, cell phone allowance, vacation time, sick days, uniform allowance, benefits and money for a retirement plan.
The 11-page complaint filed in early February does not mention that the township’s civil service commission upheld the firing Nov. 1.
The three-member panel found Molinaro was rightfully fired for falsifying documents, insubordination and other actions.
Attorney Estelle McGrath represented Leet in this case and a previous lawsuit filed by Molinaro.
McGrath argued the former chief’s claims be dismissed because the employment contract is void as a matter of law, and because Molinaro failed to comply with procedural rules by not attaching the contract to the complaint.
“There are numerous Pennsylvania cases in which employment agreements with otherwise at-will municipal employees entered into by a governing council were found to be unenforceable against future councils,” McGrath wrote in her objections.
The township attorney cited several cases and further asserted “courts have applied this principle to employment agreements with otherwise at-will municipal employees, including police chiefs, holding that if an agreement constitutes an improper attempt to bind successors, the agreement is unenforceable.”
Several new township commissioners were elected within the past few years.
McGrath also objected to the lawsuit because “(Molinaro) has not attached the contract to (his) pleading, nor has he set forth a reason for failing to attach the writing.”
Township solicitor Stephen Chesney deferred comment to township commissioner president Martin McDaniel, who declined to mention Molinaro by name.
“I think the ruling speaks for itself,” Martin said. “The plaintiff and attorney did not appear and rebut the defendant’s objections to the lawsuit. With the case that the township’s attorney made and the totality of circumstances surrounding this thing, I wasn’t surprised (with the ruling). I thought this would happen.”
Molinaro did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment.
Messages to his attorney, David Manes, and McGrath were also not immediately returned.
This was not the first time Molinaro legally challenged the township and lost.
Molinaro filed a federal lawsuit against the township in June 2022 alleging he was placed on administrative leave because of his support of their political opponents.
He also claimed in that lawsuit the township violated his civil rights, claiming retaliation against his politics and his speaking out against reinstating an officer.
That lawsuit was dismissed last year.