Case law

COOPER v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2022

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, I must examine 1) whether the facts shown “‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’” and 2) “‘whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time

Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. Girard Bank

522 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1981

The viability of conflicting plausible interpretations of the language at issue indicates that the defendant has failed to establish its immunity from liability. … Bradstreet, supra, 134 Pa. p. 169, 19 A. 500 ); (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity (Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra, 411 Pa. p. 436, 192 A.2d 682 ).

Johnson v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

709 F. Supp. 98 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1989

The fact that plaintiff’s name was considered along with other specific employees as candidates for the position establishes that plaintiff was qualified for the job. … The testimony of Shoosmith clearly establishes that the process employed was not in the normal course of business since the defendant had no established procedure for promotion of non-entry level employees.

Charter Fairmount Institute, Inc. v. Alta Health Strategies

835 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 1993

It does not expressly refer to ERISA and the rights or immunities created under ERISA are not essential elements of the plaintiffs claims. … Charter Fairmount clearly does not fall within the definition of a “participant” for purposes of § 1132(a)(1)(B). Thus, if Charter Health has standing to sue, it can only be as a “beneficiary.”

Bloch v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

240 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2017

Plaintiff makes no attempt to refute the above-cited case law that holds that an employee terminated for cause is not qualified for the position for the purposes of establishing a prima facie ADEA discrimination claim. … However, because Plaintiff cannot prove that he was qualified for the position at the time of his termination, he cannot establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and I must grant summary judgment to the defendant

Flesch v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute

434 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1977

EPPI is a mental health treatment, research, and educational institution established by the Commonwealth in Philadelphia. See 50 P.S. § 581. … Section 12(c) of the Act only authorizes suit in Pennsylvania state courts, however; the Act is silent as to suits in federal courts. 16 Although the Act is probably a partial waiver of the sovereign immunity established

Noonan v. Kane

195 F. Supp. 3d 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2016

Kane and Miletto also rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity. Kane further argues that the First Amended Complaint does not meet the pleading requirements under Rule 8(a). I. … In Suarez, the Court reviewed a district court ruling that a First Amendment retaliation claim raised by a direct mail marketing company against state officials was not barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 202 F.3d

Sendi v. NCR Comten, Inc.

619 F. Supp. 1577 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1985

This presumption may be overcome by a showing that termination violated a clearly established public policy. Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 721 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir.1983). … The notice requirement is imposed only on employees, and is clearly a matter of convenience.

Pendleton v. Trans Union Systems Corp.

430 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1977

In this case, the plaintiffs cannot point to any narrow, clearly defined duty which has not been performed. … In fact, the FTC has exercised its discretion by establishing its enforcement program and deciding what matters should be investigated.

Fox Fuel v. Delaware County Schools Joint Purchasing Board

856 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1994

While PSTCA grants immunity from negligent acts except in the eight categories delineated above, the same broad immunity is not granted for intentional torts. … Thus, while Coll and Owens, as employees of a local agency, are denied immunity for their intentional torts, immunity is not stripped from the local agency itself.

Krochalis v. Insurance Co. of North America

629 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1985

The traditional rule is that plaintiff must prove malice to establish abuse of a qualified privilege “by showing that the defamatory communication was made for an improper motive, in an improper manner, or was not based upon … if they can be overcome by a mere standard of negligence, and that a higher standard of fault should be required to establish abuse of a qualified privilege.

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2022

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), “[w]hether the violated constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the arrest.” Order (ECF 13); see Pl.’s Suppl. Br. (ECF 15); Defs.’ Suppl. Br. … At summary judgment, the police officer as the movant has the burden of establishing an entitlement to qualified immunity. Id.

Bledsoe v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

398 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1975

The present defendant, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is clearly not a proper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, *317 and the United States is the only proper party 1 . … We are aware that the Federal Tort Claims Act is strictly construed, as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Walton

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2026

Qualified Immunity Furthermore, Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 48. … The Third Circuit has held that officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Goodwin, 836 F.3d at 326–27.

Leitch v. MVM, INC.

538 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2007

The Wilson decision is clearly dispositive of the due process claims of Burge, Churm and Smith. … These letters are insufficient to establish a disputed issue of material fact for two reasons.

JACOBS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

right was “clearly established.” 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … If there is no violation or if the right was not clearly established, then the actor is protected by qualified immunity. Id.

Nunn v. NHS Human Services, Inc.

110 F. Supp. 3d 554 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2015

(concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case as, inter alia, he could not show that he was at least as qualified as the person who was hired). a. … Furthermore, plaintiff cannot show that her qualifications were so clearly superior to Mr.

Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police

73 F.R.D. 370 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1976

Clearly this Court has the power to modify the Consent Decree. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Mr. … The defendant Pennsylvania State Police shall establish an eligibility list of qualified applicants for hiring for each State Police Academy class and shall rank such applicants in the manner specified in paragraph 1.2 and

Marcavage v. Borough of Lansdowne, Pa.

826 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2011

Defendants move for summary judgment against Marcavage’s Amended Complaint on the basis that the rental ordinances are not unconstitutional, and that Jozwiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants deny that Ordinance 1251 violates any of these constitutional rights, and also argue that Jozwiak is protected by qualified immunity from liability for Marcavage’s § 1983 claim. A.

Brown v. Spade

502 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 1980

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), the record in this action is adequate to sustain a finding of good faith immunity as a matter of law. … In any event, such a claim was not “clearly established” at the time of the plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing on November 15, 1976.