Case law

BURGESS v. READING PARKING AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2024

Ordinarily, to establish a prima facie case using this framework, a plaintiff-employee needs to demonstrate that “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for a position sought or held; (3) he was … In order to determine if the Parking Authority is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court must determine whether the Parking Authority is an “arm of the State,” such that it is entitled to sovereign immunity

Doyle v. Nationwide Ins. Companies & Affiliates Employee Health Care Plan

240 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2003

This in no way establishes a bias or conflict of interest. At most, this suggests Dr. … There are no facts in the record that establish the amount of Plaintiffs Covered Compensátion.

Curtis v. Cintas Corp.

229 F. Supp. 3d 312 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2017

Finding that arbitrability is facially established, the Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies. … Cintas argues that Curtis cannot establish substantive unconscionability. (Def.’s Reply at 4.)

RIOS v. BERKS COUNTY CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2024

Thus, to be plausible, a claim related to a social worker removing a child from a parent’s custody “requires decision-making by a social worker that is so clearly arbitrary . . . … “‘Policy is made when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.’” Estate of Roman v.

DANIELS v. MARLEIHIA HARPER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2025

Defendants argued that there is no Bivens remedy available for First Amendment free exercise claims and that even if there was, the claim would be time-barred or otherwise barred by qualified immunity. Id. … App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff’s conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff’s behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the

Schwartz v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston

470 F. Supp. 2d 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2007

Goldberg in which he opined, inter alia, that “... severe psychiatric pathology clearly impacts [Plaintiffs] cognitive performance ... and functional capabilities.” … An employee welfare benefit plan is defined as: [A]ny plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer ... to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established

Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates

215 F.R.D. 495 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2003

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared in Weinberg , “the [PUTPCPL] statute clearly requires, in a private action, that a plaintiff suffer an ascertainable loss as a result of the defendant’s prohibited action.” 777 A … According to the plain *503 tiff, the proposed class qualifies for certification under Rule 23(b)(1) as this court noted in a similar class action against the same defendants. See Parks v.

Charleston v. Gilmore

305 F. Supp. 3d 612 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2018

Bitner , 455 F.3d 186 , 193 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating, in the context of a qualified immunity analysis, that "[e]ven if our sister circuits had in fact split on the issue, we would not necessarily be prevented from finding … that the right was clearly established"); but see Garrus v.

Brown v. American Home Products Corp.

236 F. Supp. 2d 445 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2002

The Settlement Agreement establishes specific criteria for conducting an echocar-diogram. … First, the moving parties have clearly established that the Hariton and Napoli firms, through the attestations of Dr. Crouse and Dr. Mueller, have submitted numerous claims that are medically unreasonable.

Valley Forge Convention & Visitors Bureau v. Visitor's Services, Inc.

28 F. Supp. 2d 947 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1998

Discussion Under Pennsylvania law, a limitation of liability clause in a commercial contract is enforceable “as long as the limitation which is established is reasonable and not so drastic as to remove the incentive to perform … Defendant argues that the plain meaning of the subject clause is to immunize it against all of plaintiffs claims. Such does not appear from a plain reading of the language of the clause.

Simms v. Schweiker

552 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1982

Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 706 (3d Cir.1981) (requiring the ALJ to explain clearly the basis for crediting one medical conclusion rather than another). … Simms if she had tried employment and I mentioned certain job areas in which I knew there were shortages and for which I knew she was qualified.

Eklof v. Bramalea Ltd.

733 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1989

Rehiring an employee into the very position from which she was discharged was clearly not what the Court contemplated as a “new and distinct relation”. … Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s claim of wrongful discharge due to racial discrimination does not qualify as an exception to the general rule that there is no common law cause of action against an employer for

Spillane v. AXA FINANCIAL, INC.

648 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2009

This Court concludes that Spillane’s disability insurance policy qualifies as a plan, fund, or program. 2. Established or maintained by employer The Court must also determine whether the David M. … Courts have concluded that such a discount qualifies as a benefit that renders the Safe Harbor inapplicable.

Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.

580 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 1984

Lukens has produced impressive evidence that clearly establishes the following: a. Absenteeism is a serious problem at Lukens. b. … If, as the evidence as a whole clearly establishes, blacks are over-represented in the “worst” jobs, where absenteeism is greatest among workers of all races, it would seem that the choice between race and job class as the

In re Riggs

51 F. Supp. 961 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1943

As between the government and the lending institutions, it was clearly intended that the United States should bear the losses resulting from defaults. But beyond this we may not go. … That is, the ultimate collection of bad loans was consigned to the United States rather than to the lending institutions, but the collecting power of the United States was neither abridged nor qualified. * * * ” While in

Fenstermaker v. Nesfedder

802 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 1992

Although school officials are generally immune to suits at state law, see generally 42 Pa. Const.Stat.Ann. § 8541, this immunity does not extend to acts of willful misconduct. See 42 Pa. Const.Stat.Ann. § 8550. … Board of Education of Escambia County Alabama, 880 F.2d 305 (11th Cir.1989), is clearly distinguishable, however, since it involved allegations that a guidance counselor and a vice-principal, acting over a two month period

Brescia v. Ireland Coffee-Tea, Inc.

73 F.R.D. 673 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1977

In addition to demonstrating through the testimony of its experts that the urn would not creep forward, defendant relied on the testimony of plaintiff and her expert to establish a viable explanation for the urn’s being placed … Moreover, even if this statement did offer some support to plaintiff’s theory of the case, what weight, if any, it was to be given was clearly within the province of the jury.

GENTLES v. THE BOROUGH OF POTTSTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2022

immunity. … Clearly, the vehicle and plates matching the description, coupled with a Black male standing next to the vehicle, were enough—in and of themselves—to justify the initial stop of Plaintiff.

Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc.

466 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 1978

. § 228c, by its terms clearly preempts any concurrent or conflicting state law regulating bonding, prompt payment and security interests governed by the Act. … As is further explained in ¶ 2.6, infra, Mary Bonaccurso may not escape liability because her acts were on her corporation’s behalf once it established she is a “packer.”

ACEVEDO v. CITY OF READING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

that Moran is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly