Pittsburgh off the hook for damages to man punched by off-duty officer

Ten years after an offduty Pittsburgh police officer chased down and punched a kid over a teenage prank — and five years after a jury awarded the teen $75,000 in a federal lawsuit — the state Supreme Court has ruled the city doesn’t have to pay on behalf of the officer.

That likely means Shane McGuire, now 26, will not see any of that jury award, as he previously agreed not to pursue the former police sergeant personally.

The saga began Nov. 12, 2012, when then-16-year-old Shane McGuire and friends were out in the city’s New Homestead neighborhood. Mr. McGuire and others smashed pumpkins in the neighborhood, banged on then-Officer Colby Neidig’s door and repeatedly rang his doorbell.

Mr. Neidig gave chase, eventually catching up with Mr. McGuire, punched him and held him until on-duty officers arrived. Mr. Neidig did not have his badge or gun, and he was not in uniform.

Mr. McGuire, who suffered a broken nose, filed a federal lawsuit against Mr. Neidig and the city, alleging excessive force, assault and battery. The city was dismissed as a defendant, but a federal jury ruled in Mr. McGuire’s favor in 2017, deciding that even though he was not in uniform, Mr. Neidig was acting under the color of the law at the time. Mr. Neidig was ordered to pay $75,000 in damages.

He sought indemnification from the city, arguing the city of Pittsburgh should be responsible for the $75,000. Mr. Neidig cited a Pennsylvania law regarding indemnification — payment for harm or injury — for municipal employees.

Mr. Neidig did not seek indemnification from the city but rather assigned to Mr. McGuire his right to sue the city for indemnification. Mr. McGuire in turn sued the city in Common Pleas Court, seeking a judgment dictating the city was obligated to indemnify Mr. Neidig.

The city’s attorneys argued that, despite what the federal jury said, Mr. Neidig was acting as a private citizen at the time, and thus the city was not responsible for the payment. That jury agreed, and Mr. McGuire appealed the case to Commonwealth Court, where they ruled in 2021 that payment wasn’t the city’s responsibility.

State law dictates a municipality indemnify an employee if the employee’s action was “within the scope of his office or duties.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision hinged upon whether “under color of state law” and “scope of office or duties” are synonymous.

The Supreme Court ruled that they were not, upholding both lower courts’ decisions.

“In summary,” Justice David Wecht wrote in the majority opinion, “we reject the argument that a federal jury’s finding that a police officer acted ‘under color of state law’ … constitutes a ‘judicial determination’ that he acted within the ‘scope of his office or duties.’ ”