After 5 years in Federal court, a long-running discrimination case brought by local businesswoman Linda Atiyeh against Gettysburg Borough has been decided in favor of the borough.
In the action taken today by U.S. District Judge Karoline Mehalchick in Pennsylvania Middle Court the borough’s motion for summary judgment was granted, judgment was entered in Gettysburg’s favor, and the case was ordered closed.
Atiyeh, owner of the York St. businesses Gallery 30 and Upper Crust Pizza, argued that a 2019 borough policy that had allowed commercial property owners to reserve parking spaces near their business, and through which she reserved and paid for a total of nine spots close to her businesses, was inappropriately amended by the borough council to limit the right to reserve parking spaces for extended periods in Gettysburg’s downtown area to hotels and bed and breakfast establishments.
Atiyeh claimed the council’s parking decision was in retaliation for a prior dispute in 2016-17 with the borough over signage at Gallery 30. Atiyeh eventually won the signage dispute when the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) and the Historical Area Review Board (HARB) recommended approval of her application to display merchandise on the exterior wall of Gallery 30. Acting on these recommendations the borough then issued a certification of approval.
Atiyeh claimed there was a causal link between the signage dispute, particularly her successful appeals to the ZHB and HARB, alleging that the borough council retaliated for the dispute when making the parking meter decision.
According to the document, a federal court will grant a motion for summary judgment from the defendant “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Mehalchick said district courts could only find “multimember bodies” such as the borough council liable for discriminatory actions “if a plaintiff can adduce sufficient evidence showing that a majority of the relevant entity was motivated by discriminatory animus.”
But the court determined that there was no clear evidence the seven borough council members used the prior dispute as a basis for their votes on the parking meter policy.
Despite the lawsuit, parking in front of the Upper Crust remains foremost in the borough’s parking plans.
Charles (Chuck) Stangor is Gettysburg Connection's Owner, Publisher, and Editor in Chief. I would like to hear from you. Please contact me at cstangor@gettysburgconnection.org.