CRANBERRY TWP — A Cranberry patrol officer who claims she was discriminated against due to pregnancy argues in new federal court filings that she received less than a day's worth of work in one week 11 times during her 26-week light-duty schedule — even as male officers never worked less than eight hours in a week while on light duty.

The filings, made Tuesday by Tiffani Shaffer in her sex discrimination lawsuit against Cranberry Township, respond to the township's motion for summary judgment in its favor and instead argue that male officers who needed light-duty assignments during the past seven years received preferential treatment compared to when Shaffer requested light duty in 2018.

“Of the five officers who worked light duty in a five-year period, Shaffer was the only pregnant officer; the only officer to ever be scheduled zero hours, or even less than eight hours, in a light duty week; the only officer not permitted to work at the station unless civilian clerical staff took the day off; and the only officer not to receive a set schedule,” one filing states.

“While Shaffer was only scheduled an average of 16.7 hours per week, the nonpregnant officers were scheduled an average of between 22 and 43.1 hours per week.”

Shaffer's filings ask the court to dismiss Cranberry's motion for summary judgment and instead move toward a jury trial in the nearly 2-year-old legal proceeding. She claims she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex by being given fewer work hours while on light duty and that she was retaliated against after making a discrimination complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Shaffer's attorney, Christine Elzer, noted there are several facts the township presents that she does not find to be true. The statements made by Police Chief Kevin Meyer were one target of Elzer's disputes.

At one point, Elzer described Meyer's statements in the case as “inconsistent,” pointing directly to one instance where he testified Shaffer was ineligible to work in the detective's office while also claiming he asked the sergeant in charge of the office if there was any available work for Shaffer.

Shaffer's response also argues whether there was enough available work to assign to Shaffer under her light duty restrictions, as the township made that a central focus of its defense.

She claims other officers on light duty received set schedules, had more duties and were treated more fairly than Shaffer, despite having similar duty restrictions.

Elzer notes that while Meyer posed a hypothetical situation in which he had multiple officers who requested light duty — Meyer posited giving them both 40-hour work weeks would be “not fair to the taxpayers” — such a situation has occurred before, and during that time both officers individually received more hours than did Shaffer, on average. One filing states:

Officer Bill “Roberts' 2015 light-duty time sheets show a steady schedule of eight or nine hours per day, five days per week, until he overlapped with (Officer Mark) Shields' light duty, at which time he worked four hours per day, five days per week.”

The filings also take issue with the township's argument it did not retaliate against Shaffer after she filed a charge with the EEOC. One filing posits nothing had changed between when Shaffer was told she could perform criminal fingerprinting and July 26, when that detail was taken away, other than her EEOC charge filing.

“Notably, Chief Meyer explicitly referenced the EEOC charge at the same meeting where he told Shaffer she could no longer do fingerprinting, PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check System firearm background checks), walk-ins or phone calls,” one filing argues.

When Shaffer attempted to defend herself against schedule changes, the filings argue, by referencing a provision of the police union contract requiring two-week notice of scheduling changes except for voluntary changes, the alleged retaliation worsened.

“A jury could find that Chief Meyer weaponized the two-week notice provision against Shaffer, using it to deny her work that would otherwise be available,” one filing states. “As both Chief Meyer and Sgt. (Chuck) Mascellino admitted, this provision only applies to involuntary schedule changes. It does not preclude voluntarily agreeing to take over shifts when others call off.”

The township's reply to Shaffer's filings is due by Tuesday. In her lawsuit, Shaffer seeks back pay, compensatory damages, court costs, a declaration the township's actions were illegal and the court to enjoin the township from future retaliation.