Case law

Farkas v. Thornburgh

493 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1980

Clearly, the Secretary replaced district administrators whose personal and professional records indicated substandard performances with optimally qualified individuals with demonstrated competence and ability. … You told him you had nothing to do with establishing policy . , ' A. We established policies within the guidelines that are set forth. Q.

BIONDINO v. BUCKS COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2025

immunity, but this is incorrect; the Authority is a municipal entity, and as such is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 145 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining that municipal entities are not eligible for qualified immunity).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Guess?, Inc.

176 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2001

It does not appear to be challenging relevancy and, we indeed find that the materials sought are clearly relevant to the EEOC’s investigation. … Work product prepared in the ordinary course of business is not immune from discovery.

Atlee v. Laird

347 F. Supp. 689 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1972

The State Department, after permitting Peru’s claim of immunity for its vessel, filed a certificate to that effect with the district court having in rem jurisdiction over the ship. … Contrasting the Steel Seizure case with Curtiss-Wright, supra, for example, clearly reveals the different set of considerations raised by foreign relations cases.

Bey v. Bolger

540 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1982

The FEAA noted: We must find that the record clearly establishes that the appellant was not physically qualified for restoration to that position [Distribution Clerk] as of July 5, 1978, when the decision was made by the … Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate impact handicap discrimination in that plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that (1) except for his physical handicap, he is qualified

Allison v. GEO Group, Inc.

611 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2009

that it is clearly established that no ‘reasonable suspicion’ justified a strip-search in this case”). … On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit panel reversed the district court’s qualified immunity ruling.

White v. Beal

413 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1976

The due process claim asserts that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’s regulations which restrict eyeglasses under the Medical Assistance Program have established a conclusive presumption “that eyeglasses are … All are poor and eligible for medical assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 1396 ; all were examined by qualified medical personnel who determined that eyeglasses were necessary for the named plaintiffs; none had eye pathology or

Euster v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission

431 F. Supp. 828 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1977

That the Commonwealth is not named as a party defendant, is immaterial because: “It is also well established that even though a State is not named a party to the action, the suit may nonetheless be barred by the Eleventh … Although there is no statute specifically authorizing the search, Rule 15.09 of the Commission clearly falls within its power to ‘prescribe rules and regulations of effectually preventing the use of improper devices, the

Winters v. Investment Savings Plan for Employees of Knight-Ridder, Inc.

174 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2001

Borger requested information from PNI about obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). … Moreover, this Court cannot ignore the strong language in 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(C) that a domestic relations order qualifies under the statute “only if such order clearly specifies” the required specifications.

Oshiver v. PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ETC.

497 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1980

Plaintiff’s right to fees turns on the question whether she is a “prevailing party” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), 1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . 2 In order to qualify for a fee award a party need not prevail in … While noting that Congress clearly contemplated that a person “may in some circumstances be a prevailing party without having obtained a favorable ‘final judgment following a full trial on the merits,’ ” 100 S.Ct. at 1989

Sabree Ex Rel. Sabree v. Houston

245 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2003

Authority, 479 U.S. 418 , 107 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987) (permitting a § 1983 suit, finding that Congress spoke in terms that “could not be clearer” and bestowing entitlements sufficiently specific and definite to qualify … Section 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of ‘rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.

BROWN v. LEIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis because the burden of pleading qualified immunity, which is an affirmative defense, rests with the defendant, not the plaintiff.

PEREZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

See 3 Qualified immunity also shields Martin. … Qualified immunity seeks to give officials “fair notice” about when their actions will subject them to liability. Id.

Howard v. PINE FORGE ACADEMY, PINE FORGE, PA.

678 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1987

Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 , 99 S.Ct. 2345 , 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979), only certain privileges and immunities of citizenship are constitutionally protected against private action. … Under well-established principles for analyzing Title VII cases, the plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she was fired from a job for which she was qualified while others not

NEWTON v. PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2025

Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings is well- established.”). B. … and parole officers are entitled only to a qualified, good faith immunity.”).

Adams Outdoor Adver. Ltd. P'ship v. Pa. Dep't of Transp.

307 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2018

Richards argues that qualified immunity shields her from liability for civil damages because there is no Pennsylvania Supreme Court or Third Circuit authority clearly establishing that any part of the Act is unconstitutional … City of Pittsburgh , 613 F.3d 380 , 394 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding that the plaintiff had "clearly failed to establish that it is similarly situated to those entities whose signs have been approved"); McClure v.

Marion v. City of Philadelphia/Water Department

161 F. Supp. 2d 381 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2001

While the Tort Claims Act provides eight exceptions to this grant of immunity, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8542, none are applicable to this case. … Ladenheim, in his motion to dismiss, argues that he does not qualify as a state actor for purposes of § 1983 as he is a private physician.

Davis v. Bucher

451 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 1978

They were all fully qualified for the positions for which they applied. … Thus plaintiffs meet the standard established by the first criterion in the Cort analysis.

Husbands v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

359 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1973

The standards for approval of administrative units promulgated by the State Board of Education clearly stated that race should not be a factor in determining unit boundaries. … This conduct clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . ” The defendants object that “plaintiffs have averred, at best, segregation which exists innocently as a result of population and geography and not by virtue of

HERNANDEZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

App’x 83, 85 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (allegation that court employee defendants failed to provide trial transcripts, depriving plaintiff of documents necessary to establish his innocence at retrial and direct appeal … Hernandez states that he is a qualified individual with a disability because of a “brain injury,” autism, and a “language processing disorder.” (Compl. at 3.)