CRANBERRY TWP — “Self-serving,” “specious” and “speculative” were some of the words township attorneys used to describe a Cranberry police officer's latest filings in her federal sex-discrimination and pregnancy-discrimination case.

In two Friday filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the township responded to officer Tiffani Shaffer's allegations that she was treated worse than male officers who requested light duty, saying her lawsuit is based on “whether Ms. Shaffer was personally satisfied with the type of work she received,” rather than any type of discrimination.

The filings, in response to Shaffer's answer to the township's motion for a summary judgment, characterize Shaffer's claims as being “without merit.”

“Ms. Shaffer's ... opposition to the township's summary judgment motion supports the township's argument that the township treated Ms. Shaffer the same as all other officers in their light-duty assignments,” one filing states. “Ms. Shaffer agrees and points out several times that all light-duty officers performed the same duties during their respective light-duty tenures.”

Cranberry's lawyers also accuse Shaffer's attorney of “manipulating the record.” In one instance, the township's filing argues Shaffer's use of other light-duty officers' vacation hours — Shaffer argued these hours could only be taken when “hours were available” and the employee chose to take that time off — to show they would have received more hours is disingenuous.

The “plaintiff's declaration on this issue is a self-serving, speculative statement made in an effort to distort that (sic) facts of the case,” one filing states. “An officer's vacation and compensatory time can be taken to augment hours worked at the officer's convenience.”

The township also posits Shaffer's argument that no other officers on light duty ever had a week in which they worked zero hours is incorrect, stating instead another officer, Patrolman Mark Shields, had “several weeks” on light duty with zero hours worked.

Cranberry argues Shaffer, rather than suing because of discrimination, sued because she wanted to have worked more hours. For instance, the township argues, Shaffer sought an exception to a loose five-year rule to work in the detective's office. That, the argument continues, would not be nondiscriminatory treatment, but instead would be just that — an exception to a rule.

“Ms. Shaffer's burden in this matter is to establish that she was treated differently than others similar in the ability or inability to work,” one filing states. “Her claim that an exception should have been made to place her in the detective's office is without merit, as Ms. Shaffer has not produced any evidence that other light-duty patrol officers without five years' experience were given an 'exception' to work in the detective's office.”

Shaffer originally filed her suit in November 2019. She seeks declaratory relief, in which the court declares the township's actions unlawful, as well as back pay, compensatory damages for retaliation, attorneys' fees and an injunction preventing future discrimination.