DV Journal

Former Yeadon Police Chief Anthony “Chachi” Paparo settled a reverse discrimination case with the borough for $2.5 million.

Paparo, 60, claimed in his lawsuit that former Council President Sharon Council-Harris, former Vice President Learin Johnson, and former council members Tomeka Jones-Waters and Carlette Brooks decided to get rid of him because Paparo is White and the town is 90 percent Black.

Paparo says he believes he could have been awarded more if the case had gone to trial, but he decided to settle because he didn’t want to bankrupt the small borough and harm the residents, of whom he remains very fond.

“I didn’t want to be at the point where we went to court and Yeadon got hit with a verdict, like the Starbucks thing, $25 million and then Yeadon doesn’t exist anymore,” Paparo told DVJournal.

In June 2023, a jury ordered Starbucks to pay $25 million to a Philadelphia store manager who claimed she was fired because she was White.

He also appreciated other council members who came forward in depositions and “talked about what these four (council members) were doing when they could have easily remained mute. But instead, they had the courage to come forward and say, ‘Hey, you know what? They’re firing this guy because he’s a White guy.’ And that’s one of the things I’ll never forget.”

Also, in February 2022, more than 1,000 residents signed a petition supporting Paparo. They opposed him “being targeted by the individual defendants because of the color of his skin,” Judge Michael M. Baylson wrote in his ruling to deny the borough’s motion to dismiss the case.

According to court records, some of the council members who wanted Paparo gone mentioned his race to other council members and that they wanted to replace him with a Black chief. They had also approached some Black officers to see if they’d be interested in the chief’s job. Ironically, the new chief, whom the council hired after sacking Paparo, was White.

Detractors pointed to a $287,000 settlement with the police union over part-time officers. Paparo used the part-timers to supplement the force during the COVID-19 epidemic and civil unrest in 2020.

On Feb. 27, 2022, Yeadon Council fired Paparo by a 4-3 vote. Council Member Liana Roadcloud said then that the vote was “about race. This is not about money.”

Paparo said he was deeply wounded by the damage to his reputation. The most difficult thing has been his inability to find another police job since Yeadon Council terminated him. He noted borough officials circulated a “Fast Facts” flyer about him to every residence in town and posted it online.

“For me, it wasn’t about the money. It was about getting my reputation back. I worked hard to build my career,” said Paparo.

Paparo said he applied for job after job without any luck. He believes potential employers would look him up online and read Yeadon’s allegations of mismanagement.

“To not even be considered for interviews when I’m applying is very, very hard to comprehend and a hard pill to swallow,” said Paparo. Although Paparo lives in Chester County, he applied for some 150 law enforcement jobs, looking in other states, as far away as South Carolina.

“It was completely about race,” Paparo said. “They got caught and had to come up with something, so they went back two years to find an FOP grievance that had nothing to do with what was going on. If it wasn’t for the courage of (the council members who supported him) and the community, I could have been just railroaded.”

Under the settlement agreement, Yeadon and the other defendants did not admit wrongdoing. The Yeadon Borough manager and solicitor did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyer Robert DiDomenicis, who represented the council member defendants, declined to comment.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Although Chester County agreed to pay Kevin Dykes $126,000 in a recent settlement agreement obtained by Delaware Valley Journal, the county and district attorney did not admit any wrongdoing.

Dykes had sought more than $150,000, claiming District Attorney Deb Ryan discriminated against him because he is Black. In a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year, he called her actions “outrageous and malicious.”

Previously Dykes, of Kennett Square, was chief of county detectives. He contended Ryan treated him differently than his White counterparts, the suit said.

Chief Kevin Dykes

A former Pennsylvania state trooper before he was hired by Chester County in 2002, he rose through the ranks under three different district attorney administrations to become the first African American chief of detectives for Chester County under former District Attorney Tom Hogan.

“When a district attorney is accused of racial discrimination, it is troubling,” Hogan said. “When a district attorney capitulates and settles a racial discrimination lawsuit, essentially giving the plaintiff what was demanded in the suit, it is telling. This entire incident is a stain on the history of the Chester County District Attorney’s Office.”

The settlement agreement stipulates neither Dykes nor county officials may discuss its terms.

In the lawsuit, Dykes claimed Ryan told him she was firing him because he was part of the previous administration. However, Ryan met with another employee who was White and allowed him to stay on to achieve “superannuation” of his pension. She did not ask Ryan where he was in the pension process or offer him a chance to stay on.

When Dykes asked to delay his termination for four days in order to not affect his county pension because he would be joining the sheriff’s office, she refused and demanded his gun, computer, and badge, the suit said.

Ryan also removed Dykes from the Chester County Law Enforcement Task Force on Race and Justice, the suit said.

Dykes’ lawyer, Dolores Troiani, said both were Democrats so party affiliation was not the issue and that other White employees who kept their jobs were Republicans. Troiani said the issue was Dykes’ race.

Dykes is a member of a “protected class” under federal law, she said. Although he could be fired, as can any employee, he “can’t be fired for the wrong reason,” she said.

Dykes, who is now chief deputy for the county sheriff’s office, took a $50,000 a year pay cut by changing jobs after Ryan fired him, Troiani said.

Under the settlement, Dykes dropped his claims against Ryan and the county. He can keep any pension he has accrued and the county will not pay his legal fees.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The Pennsbury School Board has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought over First Amendment violations. It also agreed to change its policies regarding the treatment of citizens who want to express their views to officials.

“Rules for public comment periods are meant to maintain time limits and protect each speaker’s right to be heard, not police which viewpoints are expressed. Pennsbury’s rules were so vague and subjective that the board could effectively shut down any speech they didn’t like, and that’s exactly what they did,” said Del Kolde, senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech.

The lawsuit was filed last October by Lower Makefield residents Douglas Marshall, Simon Campbell, Robert Abrams, and Tim Daly. They were represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and Michael Gottlieb of Vangrossi & Recchuiti. In addition to the $300,000 for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees, the settlement called for nominal damages of $17.91 to each plaintiff, as a symbolic payment acknowledging that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated.

The amount was chosen because 1791 was the year the First Amendment was ratified.

Neither the former solicitors nor the district’s spokeswoman responded to requests for comment on Friday.

Judge Gene E. K. Pratter

The plaintiffs were censored for attempting to criticize district policies, including efforts to promote contested ideas about diversity, equity, and inclusion. Marshall was once interrupted mere seconds into speaking because the solicitor objected to his use of the term “critical race theory” to describe the district’s initiatives. Critics of the board were cut off for addressing their comments to board members, while other speakers were permitted to directly praise board members and school employees.

A solicitor yelled “You’re done” at one man who was trying to speak to the board.

In addition to the money, the district rewrote its public comment policy to align with the First Amendment and a federal judge’s ruling. It also abolished its “civility” policy and found a new law firm to act as its solicitors. Two of the district’s previous lawyers, Michael P. Clarke and Peter Amuso, were named as defendants in the lawsuit.

“School boards across the country should take note. Rules for public comments must respect the First Amendment rights of speakers. If you are limiting which opinions may be shared, you’ll be held liable for violating First Amendment rights,” said Alan Gura, vice president for litigation at the Institute for Free Speech.

The court had ruled in November that several Pennsbury policies governing speech at school board meetings were unconstitutional. Those policies, modeled after a template recommended by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA), allowed the meeting’s presiding officer to stop speakers whose comments were deemed “personally directed,” “personal attacks,” “abusive,” “verbally abusive,” “irrelevant,” “disruptive,” “offensive,” “inappropriate,” or “otherwise inappropriate.”

After an evidentiary hearing in Philadelphia, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter found evidence that the board selectively enforced the rules to stifle criticism of its actions and members.

After the injunction was issued, Pennsbury abolished one of the two policies challenged in the lawsuit and rewrote the other to comply with the First Amendment. The court also ruled against a board requirement that speakers publicly announce their home addresses before beginning their remarks. According to a spokesperson for the PSBA, the model policy was reviewed after the court’s ruling.

The abuses in the case, however, went beyond the restrictions on speech recommended by the PSBA, the Institute said in a press release. On one occasion, school board officials edited video of a board meeting to remove a critical comment by one plaintiff. The board president even publicly apologized for not censoring the plaintiffs more aggressively.

Marshall praised the judge and the lawyers who represented the residents.

“I think it was clear that the primary motivation we had in bringing the lawsuit was to protect our constitutional rights as codified in the First Amendment,” said Marshall. “And that’s why the free speech entity agreed to take the case pro bono. They devoted an enormous amount of hours to it.”

The judge’s decision now stands as a precedent that other citizens and school boards can cite, he said.  “I think the judge properly guided us to a settlement (rather than a trial). She did a wonderful job on the case. And most importantly there is precedential value in the opinion she wrote.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal