Case law

Burke v. Green

422 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1976

clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable injury.” … However, in order to qualify for reimbursement, plaintiff was required to demonstrate his efforts to secure suitable employment while his security clearance was held in abeyance.

Visual Security Concepts, Inc. v. KTV, Inc.

102 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2000

Jang clearly distinguishes between his past career at KEC and his present employment at KTV. … Finally, Justice Steven’s position clearly cannot be met.

Butler v. Elwyn Institute

765 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 1991

Butler has clearly stated a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. … As was the case with her Title VII claim, Butler has clearly alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under the PHRA.

LLOYD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit, except when it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). … This remedy is clearly ‘adequate’ in the section 704 [of the APA] sense, and so judicial review is inappropriate on all counts.” American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today v. U.S.

Bennett v. Knauer

528 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2007

Although a doctor is not immune from liability for deliberate indifference, “it is well established that as long as a physician exercises professional judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights … This treatment was the result of his doctor’s diagnosis that he had a broken leg and clearly indicates that his medical need was serious.

Metropolitan Hospital v. Thornburgh

667 F. Supp. 208 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1987

Clearly, plaintiffs were not barred from raising their constitutional challenges. … Clearly, plaintiffs had ample opportunity to present these allegations.

Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc.

255 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2002

sufficient to establish ‘disability’ ”. … Plaintiff was a Qualified Individual We now proceed to the second element of Plaintiffs prima facie case.

Restivo v. SKF USA, Inc.

856 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1994

“In order' to establish constructive discharge, the plaintiff must establish that the employer knowingly permitted conditions of discrimination in employment so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled … Plaintiff proffered evidence to show that she was more qualified than the incumbent.

SIMMONS v. TAYLOR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2021

immunity, (Mot. to Dismiss 13–16), which protects state actors who have committed constitutional violations if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, Pearson v. … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, “a complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when an affirmative defense appears on its face.” Leveto v.

Burgos v. Canino

641 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2009

Furthermore, the length of the docket in this case clearly demonstrates that Burgos maintained a continual and thorough capability of accessing the courts. This claim fails as a matter of law. VI. … , privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Olick v. Kearney

451 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2006

In order to deprive an agent of this immunity, the plaintiff must establish that [the agent] acted solely for his own benefit and benefit to the [principal] played no role therein. … Knights *677 is not immune to Plaintiffs claim, see Weeks, 1994 WL 516561 , at *4, and if Kearney and Jenkins acted as Plaintiff has alleged, they probably exceeded the scope of their authority as agents of Knights.

Nagle v. RMA, the Risk Management Ass'n

513 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2007

The fact that a plaintiff is unable to establish an underlying sexual discrimination claim does not mean that she cannot establish a retaliation claim. See Moore v. … Southern Co., 260 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1290 (N.D.Ga.2003) ("Plaintiff's belief that her performance was equal to that of her co-workers does not support a finding that Plaintiff was actually qualified for the higher pay"). 3 .

Matthews v. Freedman

128 F.R.D. 194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1989

In support of this “long-established” proposition, he cited one case, Johnson v. … For me to immunize attorney Kramer’s conduct from any Rule 11 sanction simply because the defendants did not file a timely motion would be for me to abdicate my responsibility as a district judge to uphold minimum standards

Allen v. Butz

390 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1975

. § 1981 are waivers of sovereign immunity. Moreover, if we had to reach the issue, we would have to consider certain serious flaws in plaintiff’s complaint. … Such /an allegation clearly states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the jurisdiction of this court is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (4).

Kelly v. Drexel University

907 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 1995

To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show (1) that he belongs to the protected class, (2) that he applied for and was qualified for the job; (3) that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and (4) that the … There is no other evidence of record to show that plaintiff actually applied for a particular position for which he was qualified.

Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.

99 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1951

National Screen was the only existing concern qualified to take over and perform those services for the producer-distributors. … The court has examined the record carefully and nowhere is the element- of mutual awareness admitted or established.

Bush v. City of Philadelphia

367 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2005

To establish a claim under section 1983, plaintiff must show that defendants “1) were state actors who 2) violated his rights under the Constitution or federal law.” Benn v. … If a plaintiff can set forth the elements of common law malicious prosecution 6 along with “some deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of ‘seizure,’” plaintiff has clearly demonstrated a violation of the constitution

Burks v. City of Philadelphia

904 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 1995

STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), 4 Defendants contend that the court should grant their motion if they “clearly establish^ ] that no material issue of fact remains … Plaintiffs’ Standing to Sue Plaintiffs’ complaint must establish three elements to successfully plead standing.

Hickman v. TL Transp., LLC

318 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2018

Here, the two hours of purported overtime incorporated in the flat rate were clearly paid without regard to the number of hours any employee worked in excess of eight hours in a day. … But these two anomalies do nothing to call into question the broader picture established by the record.

VANGJELI v. BANKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2020

The movant bears the initial responsibility to establish the basis for the motion for summary judgment and identify the portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. … CONCLUSION This case clearly belongs in the realm of jury assessment and deliberation, and that is where it will head as soon as conditions permit.