Case law

Belnomi v. Sonoco Products Co.

686 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1988

On May 1, 1957, plaintiff became a participant in a pension plan established by Sonoco. On July 15,1974, plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled. … Thus, plaintiff’s contention that a claim under § 1132(a) arises as each pension payment becomes due clearly is off the mark.

Kimble v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

826 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1993

Edgewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911, 916 (3d Cir.1990). 1 Thus, in order to qualify for the futility exception and avoid the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the Kimbles must show that it is certain that their claim … Similarly, GAHS’ denial letter clearly stated why it refused the Kimble’s claim. Although the letter did not mention GAHS’ grievance process, the process is clearly explained in the policy given to the Kimbles.

Boandl v. Geithner

752 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2010

“To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must initially show, ‘(1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Bray , however, is clearly distinguishable.

Iseley v. Dragovich

236 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2002

However, Attachment C to the protocol clearly identifies certain psychological conditions which, if present, would serve to exclude certain patients from treatment. … Harrison concerned a motion by defendants for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Id. 9 .

SHIELDS v. MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2023

Natural Immunity Ms. Shields has not established that her belief in natural immunity is religious under the Africa framework. Ms. … Shields’s natural immunity belief constitutes a sincerely held religious belief. Therefore, Ms. Shields cannot establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination on this basis. b.

KREIS v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2025

Qualified Immunity The NCP Defendants also move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … “An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.

Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority

668 F. Supp. 430 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1987

However, in the absence of direct evidence a plaintiff may establish a prima fade case indirectly by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for the … position; (3) was dismissed despite being qualified; and (4) ultimately was replaced by a person sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination.

Collins v. Kimberly-Clark Pennsylvania, LLC

247 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2017

However, these individuals clearly did not engage in similar behavior. … Because this means of opposition clearly reveals “poor judgment” by Plaintiff and is not specific, it does not qualify as a protected activity.

Solt v. Alpo Petfoods, Inc.

837 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 1993

Furthermore, neither party contends *685 that Plaintiff was not qualified to do the work she was doing. … Clearly if this is the relevant class, younger similarly situated individuals were not treated any better on the whole than Plaintiff.

United States v. Fattah

170 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2016

The Speech or Debate Clause was not designed “to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility.” Brewster, 408 U.S. at 576 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 . … (“CUMA”) in qualifying for a mortgage on the purchase of a vacation home in the Poconos. At Fattah’s direction, his District Chief of Staff, BOWSER, provided the wiring instructions to VED-ERMAN. 44.

CANNON v. WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2021

Thus, Section 79197 does not establish what Defendants suggest. This Court finds this argument is without merit. … As such, AO 21-01 also does not support or establish Defendant’s contention.

Cohen v. Community College of Philadelphia

484 F. Supp. 411 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1980

The right not to be retaliated against for filing such a complaint is clearly a right “created by Title VII.” … Clearly, this plan does not require the recommending officer to accept and recommend minority candidates whenever they can be found.

Strauss v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers

179 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1959

Some tests are well established. … There is also a need to establish the $10,000 jurisdictional amount under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 , which the plaintiff has failed to do here.

United States v. Johns-Manville Corporation

213 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1962

Swift, 186 F. 1002 (N.D.Ill.1911), 21 immunity gained under a statute such as 15 U.S. … If at the trial of these defendants the Government cannot establish its case without evidence precluded by the statutory immunity, these defendants will be entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

Williams v. Pennsylvania State Police-Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement

144 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2001

Document No. 52) in this civil rights case, seeking a ruling that the evidence could not support a jury finding that he violated the equal protection rights of plaintiff Sharon Williams, and that regardless, he is entitled to qualified … immunity.

PEPE v. LAMAS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.”) … established statutory or constitutional right of a prison inmate.

Drummer v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa.

286 F. Supp. 3d 674 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2017

was otherwise qualified for his position despite his disability. … Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, 41 the mere fact that he was employed by Defendant up until the time of his termination does not by itself establish that he remained qualified for his job. 42 Such an assumption would

Hispanic Coalition on Reapportionment v. Legislative Reapportionment Commission

536 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1982

Defendant Commission specifically requested that the Court rule on its defense of legislative immunity under Supreme Court of Virginia v. … Accordingly, the Court declines to decide the issue of the Commission’s immunity. 5 .

Johnson v. Folino

735 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2010

In the context of the AEDPA, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 . … In Crawford the Supreme Court eschewed a comprehensive definition of what qualifies as “testimonial” evidence. Id.

AUTERI v. VIA AFFILIATES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability “as the functioning of his immune system has been impaired by [Plaintiff’s] infection with COVID-19.” (Compl., ¶ 185.) … immunity.