Two state police supervisors allege their bosses retaliated against them for triggering an investigation of troopers who faked work schedules to boost their pay.
In a federal lawsuit filed Monday, Capt. Patrick J. Dougherty, 52, of Shickshinny, and Lt. Derek D. Felsman, 40, of Jefferson Twp., contend they rightly turned in three troopers who reported working afternoon-evening shifts that paid 5% more.
The three actually worked morning-afternoon shifts that don’t include the shift differential, Dougherty and Felsman allege.
State police officials retaliated against them, “desirous of covering up what may well be a very widespread theft,” the suit says.
The suit accuses the state, Gov. Josh Shapiro, state police Maj. Norman Cramer, Lt. George Bivens and up to 10 John or Jane Does of violating the state whistleblower law and Dougherty and Felsman’s rights to free speech and due process. Bivens is set to become acting state police commissioner on Wednesday.
Spokesmen for Shapiro and the state police declined to comment.
Retaliation rooted in Trump photo
Felsman alleges state police brass began retaliating against him after September 2022 when he and more than 30 other troopers posed in a photo with President Donald Trump. Trump was out of office then but campaigned locally for Shapiro’s opponent in the governor’s race, state Sen. Doug Mastriano. Trump later released the photo publicly.
Dougherty wasn’t in the photo, but state police supervisors “were in the process of removing him from his position” at the time, though Gov. Tom Wolf blocked that, according to the suit.
“Absent Gov. Wolf’s intervention, ... Dougherty would have been retaliated against with respect to a photo that did not involve him,” the suit says.
Dougherty, a trooper since October 2004, Felsman, a trooper since January 2007, and the troopers accused of wrongdoing — a sergeant and two corporals — all worked at Troop P, whose troopers police Bradford, Sullivan and Wyoming counties and the northern half of Luzerne County.
The 'Blue Team entry'
Instead of investigating the potential theft, Cramer tried to discourage Felsman and Dougherty from filing a “Blue Team entry,” which triggers an internal affairs investigation, according to the suit.
Dougherty warned Cramer he planned to file.
“Maj. Cramer’s response was to pause and say ‘this could get legs’, attempting to discourage (them),” the lawsuit says.
Dougherty read the comment as implying “the practice was widespread throughout” the state police.
He and Felsman filed the complaint anyway Feb. 13, 2025.
“After entering the Blue Team, it was clearly apparent that ... Dougherty’s immediate supervisor, Maj. Norman Cramer was dissatisfied with him,” Philadelphia attorney Mark Schwartz wrote in the suit.
“Dougherty began to experience a hostile work environment in part consisting of increased scrutiny and unwarranted criticism.”
The fake schedules
Dougherty first learned of the fake schedules Feb. 11 when Lt. James Youngblood informed him a review of the scheduling system found the sergeant scheduled for noon to 8 p.m. shifts when the sergeant actually worked 7 a.m.-to-3 p.m. or 8 a.m.-to-4 p.m. shifts, according to the suit.
Dougherty and Felsman asked the sergeant why and how long that was going on.
“His response was to simply shrug his shoulders and say that it didn’t go on all year,” the suit says. “(The sergeant) was not questioned further as it was clear that this situation could turn into a criminal investigation.”
After that, Dougherty checked the scheduling system again and found the two corporals doing the same thing.
The sergeant and two corporals had noon to 8 p.m. schedules for eight months in all, the suit alleges.
One corporal filed “a bogus and retaliatory Blue Team entry” on March 3, claiming Dougherty and Youngblood created “a hostile workplace” and that Dougherty allowed a previous corporal to work noon to 8 p.m. seven years earlier.
The suit replies that corporal actually worked noon to 8 p.m.
What about 'after all this plays out?'
Cramer informed Dougherty of the corporal’s filing a day later, saying “it didn’t look good “for Dougherty."
“Further, Maj. Cramer said that he wondered where Lt. Col. George Bivens was going to put Dougherty ‘after all this plays out?’” the suit says.
Dougherty asked him why Bivens would move him when he did nothing wrong.
Two weeks later, Cramer visited Troop P’s Wilkes-Barre station, loudly criticized Dougherty’s scheduling and repeated what he said about the job transfer.
“Dougherty again reminded him what those three individuals did by falsifying time was to commit fraud and theft,” the suit says.
Three times, Cramer loudly told him, “we’ll see how it all plays out for you.”
At least seven other employees heard Cramer yelling.
'Some people want you to fail'
On May 19, as Felsman prepared to attend a community service award event, Cramer berated him for about 90 minutes, according to the suit.
He raised the internal affairs investigation, questioned Felsman’s management of a cold case, told him he didn’t like him and that “some people want you to fail,” the suit alleges.
The confrontation went on so long, Felsman missed the event.
A day later, U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan shared photos on social media of Felsman’s visit with him May 13 in Washington, D.C. Felsman was there to commemorate National Police Week.
Cramer wasn’t happy about Felsman’s travels, telling Dougherty that “he better not be wearing the uniform.”
“Presumably, this and the criticism over the Trump photo arose from the Democrat(ic) front office, reflective of Democrat(ic) Gov. Josh Shapiro’s partisan party leanings,” the suit alleges.
The suit does not detail any specific involvement by Shapiro in the matter but faults him for lacking “the requirement of oversight of his own administration.”
As Dougherty drove to the May 29 high school graduation of the daughter of a trooper who died, police union president Stephen Polishan called and told him he was under investigation.
At the graduation, Dougherty mentioned the investigation to Cramer, who already seemed to know.
“When they move you, I wonder where it will be,” Cramer told him, according to the suit. “Probably the casino because there is no captain there.”
'A very popular and hard-working captain'
Dougherty told Cramer the investigation was “clearly retaliatory.”
On June 6, a disciplinary report accused Dougherty of improperly supervising troopers, but the suit says Dougherty was not their direct supervisor.
“This finding placed ... Dougherty in a false light,” the suit says. “When it came to Troop P, he was a very popular and hard-working captain who built strong bonds with the community, local police chiefs, state and local politicians and most importantly with his troopers. Other than the three supervisors who were committing fraud and theft, the troop ran very well with minimal problems. All of (Dougherty’s) ... performance evaluations were always very good.”
Sergeant, corporals salaries went up
On July 2, the sergeant accused of theft was suspended for 25 days and given “a specialty position” organizing “trunk or treat” events but was not transferred or demoted, the suit says.
The sergeant went from earning a salary of $119,196 as of Jan. 15 — before the discovery of what happened — to earning $129,878 as of Dec. 15, according to PennWatch, a website that tracks the salaries of state employees.
The suit says the corporals admitted to getting paid for “a shift differential they were not entitled to.”
One corporal admitted “to manipulating the schedule to hide (the sergeant’s) shift theft,” according to the suit.
This corporal, once part of the department’s Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards, “received an honorable discharge,” according to the suit. He earned $120,448 a year and was no longer listed as a state employee as of March 15.
The other corporal was not removed from a criminal investigation unit, but the suit does not indicate any discipline of him. He went from earning $115,628 a year as of Jan. 15 to $123,828 as of Dec. 15, according to PennWatch.
Reassignments, embarassments
The same day the sergeant’s suspension came down, Bivens told Dougherty that Troop P needed change and immediately reassigned him to the state commission in Harrisburg that oversees training of local police officers.
“To embarrass him further,” the department gave him “an outdated” vehicle and assigned him to work in a conference room instead of an office, “reinforcing the perception that he had been sidelined or punished,” the suit says.
On July 3, a new captain and new lieutenant were assigned to Troop P. Five days later, Cramer removed Felsman as criminal investigation section commander with no explanation and named him special projects section commander, “a made-up broom closet position.”
“Maj. Cramer was overheard saying that he was proud to have blindsided ... Felsman,” the suit says. “This was embarrassing and painful, resulting in the loss of sleep and stress, culminating in an emotional breakdown in front of his two youngest children.”
Bivens also ordered Felsman’s name moved to the back page of a Troop P roster instead of on the front page with other lieutenants, according to the suit. Eventually, he applied for and was granted a transfer to Dunmore-based Troop R.
On July 10, Dougherty received a written reprimand stemming from the corporal’s “hostile work environment” complaint.
Dougherty filed a grievance challenging the reprimand through the state police union. On Aug. 4, the reprimand and the disciplinary report were rescinded, “indicating no wrongdoing,” according to the suit.
“Nonetheless, ... Dougherty was informed his transfer would stand,” the suit says.
Felsman, who was not part of the complaint, did not receive a reprimand, but has filed a grievance alleging retaliation.
The two seek unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorney fees and cost.
The events of the past year did not reduce Dougherty’s or Felsman’s salaries either.
Felsman, who remains a lieutenant, earned $134,468 a year as of Jan. 15, which increased to $145,213 a year by Dec. 15.
Dougherty, who remains a captain, went from earning $149,073 a year as of Jan. 15 to $162,280 as of Dec. 15.
