Former Tioga County undersheriff wins $2M settlement

Contributed by Matt Freeze, Sayre Morning Times —

Last week, former Tioga County Undersheriff Wayne Moulton won a $2 million judgment against Tioga County and county officials for violating his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

A lawsuit filed by Moulton against the county, Sheriff Gary Howard, and Sheriff’s Department Captain of Operations Shawn Nalepa alleges that they intentionally pushed him not to run for county sheriff and violated his right to due process after a false allegation was made against him.

Moulton was awarded $1.5 million in economic damages and $500,000 in non-economic damages after a jury ruled in his favor on all claims.

Moulton was hired as a corrections officer by the sheriff’s department in September 1991, and became a police officer in 1997, and over the years, was subsequently promoted up the ranks to undersheriff in May 2019.

The lawsuit alleged that Moulton had publicly expressed interest in running for sheriff when Howard retired. However, Moulton was approached by Howard at the beginning of 2019, who asked Moulton not to run for the position, as Howard had decided to run for another term.

The lawsuit alleged that Moulton responded that he would instead retire from the sheriff’s department, at which point Howard offered Moulton the position of undersheriff, which he accepted.

The civil complaint said Moulton continued to discuss his intention to run for sheriff.

On May 8, 2020, Howard accused Moulton, Lieutenant Nathaniel Marsh, and Senior Investigator Timothy Schmidt of drinking on the job, to which Moulton said he was willing to take a sobriety test to prove his innocence.

According to the complaint, “Howard refused to allow Plaintiff (Moulton) to say anything, stating, in sum and substance, ‘Retire now or you are fired.’”

The lawsuit went on to say that Howard did not allow or order him to take a sobriety test.

Moulton subsequently retired on May 18, 2020, and his name remained on the New York State Central Registry of Police and Peace Officers Registry, and he was provided a “retired officer” badge allowing him to continue to carry a concealed weapon.

On June 18, 2020, the sheriff’s department reported Marsh’s separation from the sheriff’s department as a resignation and not “removed for cause pending an investigation or disciplinary proceeding.”

Schmidt, who was accused along with Moulton and Marsh, did not resign or retire, and his employment was not terminated, lawsuit documents said.

One year later, on May 18, 2021, Moulton received notice that his name had been removed from the retired officer registry, and a letter from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DJCS) said the sheriff’s department had stated Moulton had “ceased to serve the sheriff’s department due to alleged incompetence or misconduct.”

The lawsuit said that “upon review of the information response, (Moulton) discovered that Defendants Howard and Nalepa had made false statements to the DCJS, resulting in (his) name being removed from the registry.”

Howard’s false statement, according to the lawsuit, states in a May 3, 2021, letter to DCJS, “It is the understanding of this office that former employee Wayne T. Moulton … has a current status as ‘retired’ effective May 19, 2020. I would like to inform you that prior to his effective retirement date, a disciplinary process had commenced for incompetence and/ or misconduct and was not concluded prior to his retirement.”

In another letter sent by Nalepa dated the same day, the complaint alleged Nalepa said the same thing to DCJS.

Moulton’s lawsuit accused the defendants of damaging his reputation, standing, and good character, as well as having falsely barred him from being able to secure future employment in law enforcement.

The lawsuit said that the defendants “had no reason, a year after (Moulton’s) retirement from their employ, to make false statements to the DCJS regarding the circumstances of (his) separation from employment, other than to stop him from running for office against Howard and to retaliate against him for refusing to withdraw statements regarding his interest in the candidacy.”

The complaint also said that, “in contrast, the defendants did not state that Marsh, who had never expressed an interest in candidacy, had been removed due to incompetence or misconduct – notwithstanding that he was subjected to the same accusations.”

Further, it said that Schmidt continues to be employed by the sheriff’s department, though he was subjected to the same accusations leveled against Moulton and Marsh.

The jury found Howard, Nalepa, and Tioga County guilty of First Amendment retaliation and a violation of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment.

In regard to the allegations of defamation and reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a statement, Howard and Nalepa were both found guilty.