Case law

Lopez v. Art Kraft Containers, Corp.

660 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1987

The burden of proof is on the employer to establish an exemption. See Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. … Since the lump sum payments at issue in this case are non-discretionary, and are given pursuant to a contract, they do not qualify for exclusion under § (e)(3).

GIORDANO v. THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2021

A plaintiff then bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d. Cir. 2005). … The Third Circuit has not established standards for determining whether an employee falls within the exemption.

Oliver v. Clinical Practices of University of Pennsylvania

921 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2013

We find that Defendants’ non-discriminatory reasons are clearly sufficient to satisfy their burden. 3. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she: (1) is over 40; (2) is qualified for the position in question; (3) suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) was replaced by a

BROWN v. MUHAMMAD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2024

immunity. … But that’s not enough to establish action that one could fairly attribute to the state.

RIDDICK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2025

Dec. 13, 2024) (“To qualify for [the Ex Parte Young] exception, however, the official must have some connection with the enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional act.” … It is the plaintiff's burden to establish diversity of citizenship. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. vy.

Berry v. Cadence Industries Corp.

552 F. Supp. 1284 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1982

However, as has been noted, the statement clearly separates benefits under the terminated plan, which are said to be vested, and any benefits which the employee would receive under the new plan, which the statement itself … The terms of the annuity contract indicate clearly that it is simply a vehicle for distributing benefits vested under the terminated plan, and not a plan in itself.

Alexander v. Red Star Express Lines of Auburn, Inc.

646 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1986

Cox a letter stating that he could return to work when *675 he was physically qualified. (Tr. at 46-47). … Although defendant did not clearly object to the court’s special interrogatories, and the jury instructions submitted by plaintiff (Tr. at 88-91), it requested a directed verdict for defendant. (Tr. at 91).

Pineda v. Philadelphia Media Holdings LLC

542 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2008

Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he was discharged from that position; and … Plaintiff has asserted that he was qualified to handle those accounts that were transferred, and that he was qualified for his job.

Walden v. Saint Gobain Corp.

323 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2004

It requires a showing that: (1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he/she was qualified for the position; (3)- he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) either non-members … Borough of Schuylkill Haven, 12 F.Supp.2d 423, 441 (E.D.Pa.1998) ("Pennsylvania law clearly provides that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to at-will employment.”); Woomer v. Landis & Gyr, Inc., No.

Escher v. DECISION ONE MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC.

417 B.R. 245 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2009

The parties agree that the reasonableness of title insurance rates in Pennsylvania is established by the Manual of the Title Insurance Rating Bureau of Pennsylvania (the “Manual”). … The Bankruptcy Court’s finding that the Eschers offered no proof that the lender was aware of the existence of prior insurance at the time of the closing was not clearly erroneous.

LEISURE II v. PFURSICH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2021

official acting pursuant to court directive is also immune from suit.”) … Even if Leisure was able to name an appropriate defendant, his due process claim fails for an additional reason: the due process claim is clearly barred by res judicata.

HANDFIELD v. GARMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2024

That is clearly improper. This Court cannot reconsider an order that was not issued by this Court in the first instance. … Further, Handfield's apparent attempt to overturn the Third Circuit’s August 2, 2018, order is clearly untimely, as that order is over five years old.

Hughes v. United States

278 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 1967

In addition, this court must be guided by the well established principles applicable to the review of an administrative agency order. An order of the Commission is presumed valid. … , the proper method for reaching such a determination is by the established agency practice of holding hearings.

Berrios v. City of Philadelphia

96 F. Supp. 3d 523 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2015

Section 1983 provides that a plaintiff may bring a lawsuit against a state actor for a violation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Berg v. … The treatment of Nizah Morris and the appalling “investigation” into her homicide, as well as police interaction with other members of the LGBT community, clearly demonstrates that the police require more diversity training

Siana Gordon, Administratrix of the Estate of Jahaad Atkinson v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2025

The record evidence clearly establishes that the decedents were not in a permissive crossing when they were struck. … The evidence clearly establishes that the decedents were traveling longitudinally, and there is no longitudinal permissive way under Pennsylvania law. Antonas v. Lyford, 144 F.2d 763, 764 (3d Cir. 1944); Davies v.

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates

595 F. Supp. 800 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1984

Merely establishing that a particular method of protecting against default is not commonly used is not sufficient to establish a violation of section 1972: Unless the “unusual” banking practice is shown to be an anticompetitive … 479 F.Supp. 448, 451 (M.D.La.1979), reconsid. denied 483 F.Supp. 211 (M.D.La.l980) (“a continuing guaranty agreement is frequently considered as a ‘security device’ in that it secures the obligation of another, but it is clearly

LOMBARDO v. EVANS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2024

He references various Pennsylvania criminal statutes and United States constitutional amendments throughout the list, but does not clearly explain the basis for the claims. … “[W]hether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity depends on whether she establishes that she was functioning as the state’s ‘advocate’ while engaging in the alleged conduct that gives rise to the constitutional

Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury

645 F. Supp. 2d 381 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2009

Also, it is well established that “illegal seizure of property does not immunize it from forfeiture as long as the government can sustain the forfeiture claim with independent evidence.” United States v. … In analyzing Plaintiffs’ claim, the first question we must ask is “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Samuel v.

Bailey v. Barrett

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2019

–28 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Sawyer’s allegations against Judges McNally and Way—challenging the imposition of a $25,000 bail, pro se filing restrictions, and an order that Sawyer be transported to court with a gag in place—clearly … “‘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.

United States ex rel. McGrath v. Mathues

6 F.2d 149 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1925

It is clearly settled that a certified copy of the indictment offered in evidence is to be taken as prima facie proof of the facts stated therein. … On the other hand, if the facts averred in the indictment, taken as true, obviously and palpably fail to establish all or any of the three elements above referred to, it is the duty of the eoui*t, irrespective of whether