Case law

Osmun

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

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, Osmun must show: “(1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the [ADA]; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of … Clearly the County has overwhelmingly done that here, as the record is replete with evidence establishing Osmun was terminated due to her disclosure of confidential information, as discussed above.

Burns v. USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2022

Devieux clearly indicated that Plaintiff’s suicide threat was a factor in his decision not to attempt to convince Plaintiff to rescind her resignation. … July 13, 2013) (“[a]n employee who is a direct threat to the safety of himself or others is not a qualified individual with a disability”); Felix v. WisDOT, 828 F.3d 560 (7th Cir.

FERRETTI v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

As Pennsylvania has not waived its sovereign immunity, and because Congress has not explicitly abrogated immunity through authorizing legislation, the Eleventh Amendment operates as a bar to claims for damages under § 1983 … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, adjudication of the revocation proceeding is still pending.

PERONACE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2023

“Policy is made when a decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” … This statement is insufficient to establish liability under Monell.” (citation omitted)); see also Taylor v. Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-3369, 2018 WL 6574187, at *10 (E.D. Pa.

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL TRISTIAN PAONE, BY AND THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE, MICHAEL PAONE, JR. AND LISA PAONE v. PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2022

The more-specific provision rule appropriately bars Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim as it is currently pleaded because it is rooted in the John Doe officers’ alleged use of lethal force and clearly based on the … Plaintiffs concede the Township is immune from their state law claims to the extent that the conduct underlying their injuries does not fall within one of nine statutory exceptions to the Township’s broad immunity under

Brusstar v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

636 F. Supp. 1557 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1986

with established principles of federalism.” … Clearly, opinions may and do differ as to whether the holding in Kramer is desirable as a matter of social policy.

Powell v. Pennsylvania Railroad

166 F. Supp. 448 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1958

In that case the plaintiffs, seeking to enforce an order of the Adjustment Board, were clearly not those who had prosecuted the grievance. … years. 1 Establishing a legal liability does not of itself bring any fund into being.

KAHLER v. THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2025

“[C]ustom may be established by proving knowledge of, and acquiescence to, a practice.” Watson v. Abington Twp., 478 F.3d 144, 156 (3d Cir. 2007). … Clearly, Kahler filed her Amended Complaint before the one-year period passed, and despite arguing that her claim has now ripened, Kahler cites no case law supporting her proposition that the claims should proceed.

Delgado v. McTighe

522 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1981

The MBE consists of a series of fact situations followed by four possible answers, one of which is designed to be clearly better than any of the other three. … Page one of the Court’s memorandum clearly notes plaintiffs’ contention that “changes in the passing grades were done arbitrarily ...” (Memorandum at 886).

Cohen v. Austin

861 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1994

Plaintiff argues that the evidence clearly shows that defendant’s actions were the result of religious discrimination. … The elements of a prima facie case of discrimination are as follows: 1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) despite her qualifications, the employer terminated her; 4)

Z & R Cab, LLC v. Philadelphia Parking Authority

22 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2014

As the Commonwealth Court stated, This manner of establishing a state agency’s budget is sui generis. … riot clearly foreshadowed; (2) the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation; and (3) the equities involved.

SHAQRAN v. BLINKEN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2024

But the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.” White-Squire v. U.S. … United States, 839 F.2d 987, 992 (3d Cir. 1988) (“[L]imitations periods must be strictly construed, especially those involving a waiver of sovereign immunity.”).

Hawn v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.

99 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1951

Nevertheless, the problem of proximate cause was clearly discussed in other parts'of the charge, including a point submitted by the defendant and read to the jury. … In talking to the jury, however, the court omitted to state explicitly the conditional words qualifying the jury’s duty to find negligence or unseaworthiness.

ZARROW

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen the Complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from an immune defendant. … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v.

INTERRANTE v. MERCK & CO., INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

His decision to climb inside the compactor was his and clearly contrary to the explicit instruction of Supervisor Nash, given just moments before. … “Under this framework, a plaintiff bears the burden to prove a prima facie discrimination case by establishing that: she has a disability, she was qualified for an employment position with or without a reasonable

LAGUNA v. CHESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2022

The burden of establishing a prima facie case “is not onerous,” Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. … But, Plaintiff was terminated which is clearly an adverse action.

United States v. Bevans

728 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1990

The Government clearly has met these requisites. … These elements may be established in whole or in part by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90 (3d Cir.1988).

United States ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc.

96 F. Supp. 3d 504 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2015

A qui tam relator must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction. See Gould, 220 F.3d at 178 (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. … Finally, Wilkins clearly established that certifying compliance with the Anti-Kickback Act is a pre-condition to payment for both Medicaid and Medicare, and such false certification is actionable under the FCA.

Ferreri v. First Options of Chicago, Inc.

623 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1985

In any case, plaintiff in this matter had clearly ratified the contract); Hartford Financial Systems v. … In order to qualify for protection under the Pennsylvania Securities Act, Mr.

JANE DOE v. DUNKIN' DONUTS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2020

In the context of gender stereotyping, the allegations clearly illustrate discriminatory conduct at the hands of Doe’s supervisors. … Doe also claims that she was qualified for her position. See id. ¶ 21.