CRANBERRY TWP — A sex- and pregnancy-discrimination lawsuit filed against Cranberry Township by a police officer will continue after a federal judge on Friday denied the township's request for a summary judgment.

In a 21-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Christy Chriswell Wiegand wrote that enough dispute over facts continues to exist to deny the township's motion for a summary judgment, which would have required the township to show any reasonable jury would see the evidence presented thus far only in Cranberry's favor.

Wiegand's decision, handed down Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, means the lawsuit filed by Tiffani Shaffer, a Cranberry police officer who claims she was discriminated against due to her pregnancy and retaliated against for reporting the alleged discrimination, will continue.

Shaffer alleges her hours were unfairly cut after she requested to be placed on light duty due to her pregnancy, and that the Cranberry police department treated her differently than it had similarly situated male officers who had been placed on light duty. For instance, Shaffer claims the township forbade her from taking fingerprints, while male officers on light duty were not barred from doing so.

“In other words, Ms. Shaffer maintains that the crux of her claim is that she was denied the opportunity to work that was provided to other, non-pregnant officers on light duty,” Wiegand wrote.

When Shaffer reported the alleged discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, the federal body tasked with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, she claims, her hours dropped from an average of 30 to 15 per week.

Wiegand also found there was enough evidence for Shaffer to move forward with her discrimination charge.

“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Shaffer, the court concludes that Ms. Shaffer has established that, for purposes of summary judgment, she was subjected to 'materially adverse' employment actions sufficient to deter a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination,” the judge wrote.

Wiegand's findings in the opinion do not mean Shaffer has enough evidence to win at trial, and the judge did not make a finding as to whether the township discriminated or retaliated against Shaffer.

Although refraining from dismissing Shaffer's allegations of discrimination and retaliation, Wiegand did summarily find for the township with respect to Shaffer's request for punitive damages, finding municipalities cannot be sued for punitive damages in a sex discrimination case.

In her lawsuit, Shaffer requests back pay and reimbursement for lost experience, training and other benefits.