A state appeals court on Thursday found that the City of Pittsburgh committed an unfair labor practice two years ago when it failed to reinstate a police officer it fired after he was accused of sexual assault.
Officer Aaron Fetty took his case to arbitration in November 2022 and won his job back, but Pittsburgh fought the ruling.
In March 2024, Commonwealth Court upheld the arbitration decision and required Fetty to be reinstated “as soon as practical.”
However, Fetty remains off the job, said police union President Robert Swartzwelder.
“He’s never been back to work, and they never paid him a dime,” Swartzwelder said.
Messages left with the City of Pittsburgh were not immediately returned.
The background
According to court records, Fetty and a group of officers from the Zone 5 station in Highland Park had a cookout at the end of their shift on June 19, 2021. They drank alcohol and then went to a bar.
One of Fetty’s coworkers became intoxicated, the records showed, and he drove her home.
TribLive does not name alleged victims of sexual assault.
Nine days later, the city’s Office of Municipal Investigations received an anonymous complaint that Fetty had sexually assaulted the woman.
That department launched an investigation, as did the Allegheny County Police.
No criminal charges were ever filed, but in September 2021, the city suspended Fetty, ordered him to counseling and gave him a five-year “last chance agreement for sexual harassment,” documents show.
He was also transferred to Zone 1 on the North Side.
A few months later, the coworker obtained a temporary protective order against Fetty and sent a mass email to members of the police bureau detailing her recollection of what happened that night.
She accused him of sexual assault and criticized the city’s response.
In March 2022, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Kathleen Mulligan issued a final sexual violence protective order in the case, finding that Fetty “‘at a minimum …. committed the act of sexual assault’ against a fellow officer on June 19, 2021.”
That summer, the city suspended Fetty pending termination. However, the police union filed a grievance on his behalf, which went to arbitration.
The arbitrator ruled in Fetty’s favor, finding that the termination was illegal because it occurred beyond the 120-day limit for disciplinary action under the union contract.
That decision was affirmed by Common Pleas Court and Commonwealth Court.
The city appealed to the state Supreme Court. That request is pending while the court considers a Philadelphia case with statewide ramifications on whether there ought to be a public policy exception that allows municipalities to terminate officers who commit wrongdoing.
No ambiguity
In the meantime, the union filed an unfair labor practice against the city for its failure to reinstate Fetty.
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ruled in Fetty’s favor in September 2024.
The city appealed, arguing that the phrase “as soon as practical” in the original order reinstating him is ambiguous and “reasonably could be read to give the city discretion to determine that it is not ‘practical’ to reinstate Fetty because doing so would adversely affect other police officers and the work of the bureau.”
In the decision issued Thursday, the Commonwealth Court disagreed.
“We do not condone the underlying conduct on which this termination of employment was based,” the court wrote.
“But the board correctly determined that the (arbitration) award was not ambiguous and required immediate reinstatement and other relief, and therefore properly concluded that the city’s failure to implement that relief was an unfair labor practice.”