Case law

HOLLINGSWORTH v. R HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2020

“[I]n order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must show: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the … That is clearly contradicted by his April 2018 email stating that French’s daughter had “stopped assisting in rental payments.” Ex.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT NO. 23 v. K.S.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2021

Absent a state practice clearly foreclosing public funding of typical preschools for disabled children when necessary for FAPE, we cannot conclude that Pennsylvania has clearly opted out of the IDEA’s FAPE requirements … Only where, as here, it is clearly established that the disabled child requires placement in a typical preschool to receive FAPE is the LEA responsible for tuition.

Delaware Valley Financial Group, Inc. v. Principal Life Insurance

640 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2009

qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a).” … Turning to the next requisite element— that of the threat of immediate, irreparable harm, we note that while the evidence clearly showed that the plaintiffs needed a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief commencing

Gaynor v. Ephrata Community Hospital

690 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1988

The nonforfeitability provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1053 , however, clearly preclude such an implied waiver of past participation rights in a pension plan. … Clark, 473 F.Supp. 902, 908 (M.D.Fla.1979) (intent of Congress to protect employees from bargaining away benefits provided by plans qualified under ERISA).

General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse

495 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1980

The GBS policy manual clearly stated that the list was to be a classified document and was not for public use. See Ex. P-42. … with GBS by using the lists for his own personal profit after he clearly was terminated by GBS.

Ford-Greene v. NHS, Inc.

106 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2015

Under the *604 McDonnell Douglas model, the plaintiff is first required to set forth sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. … "Under that familiar test, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain

Daniels v. School District

982 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2013

To make out a prima facie case of race discrimination, Daniels must come forward with evidence to establish the following four elements: (1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he was qualified for the position … With that established, we find that Daniels has met her burden of moving forward on the first two prongs of her prima facie case.

N.M. ex rel. W.M. v. Central Bucks School District

992 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2014

However, Plaintiffs present no extrinsic evidence establishing that the teachers were incapable of testifying regarding his emotional needs. (See id.) … Again, this report does not clearly present a picture of a student who clearly had behavioral issues. Regardless, in that IEP the District provided a program to address N.M.’s emotional needs. (P-21 at 17.)

KOVALEV v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2023

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that to qualify as a place of public accommodation, two elements must be fulfilled: “first, it must be one of the statutorily enumerated categories of establishments that … The statute lists the following establishments as places of public accommodation: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located

Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Television Network Commission

808 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 1992

Plaintiffs claim that this scheme also violates the Pennsylvania Constitution clearly forms part of the same case or controversy. … itself admits that under all but the most restrictive and questionable definitions of the PPTNC’s non-duplication standard (none of which, plaintiff also admits, have been formally adopted by the PPTNC), WYBE would likely qualify

Coyle v. Kristjan Palusalu Maritime Co., Ltd.

83 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2000

Clearly, the act of falling resulting in a bloody nose constitutes an unusual occasion. From these circumstances, it could reasonably be inferred that Mr. … knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make that ... report ..., all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified

CARROLL v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY OF PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2020

Carroll’s claims against the University; and, even if sovereign immunity did not bar these claims, Mr. … immunity against Mr.

TANCREDI v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2023

SEPTA has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts establish that the applicant chosen for the position was better qualified than Tancredi and age was not a factor in the decision. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Tancredi must show: (1) he is at least 40 years old; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) he was qualified for the position; and (4) a sufficiently younger

Jones v. Chieffo

833 F. Supp. 498 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 1993

In any section 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that conduct deprived a person of his rights, privileges, or immunities … As the first prong is clearly met, the following discussion addresses only the second. 1. Officer Chieffo a.

Innella v. Lenape Valley Foundation

152 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2015

Innella “has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. … Cur-ran clearly stated that being “[positive for a drug does not equal intoxication.” (PL’s Ex. C (Curran Dep.) 17:9-10). Finally, the record makes clear that Ms.

Resident Advisory Board v. Rizzo

425 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1976

Moreover, the evidence presented clearly establishes that the overwhelming majority of the scattered site houses acquired by PHA are located in racially impacted areas of Philadelphia, a process which reinforces segregation … However, the evidence clearly establishes that WAIC participated in all stages of the Whitman Park Townhouse Project. 2) The City of Philadelphia It is clear from the testimony that certain officials of the City were aware

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

542 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 1982

In order to receive these matching funds, a state must first ensure that the facilities in question meet the federal government’s standards to qualify for ICF/MR funding. … Clearly, they have presented no reason which persuades this Court that they cannot transfer the 100 non-Southeast Region residents of Pennhurst, as ordered in Paragraph 3 of this Court’s Order of March 2, 1981.

Barker v. Boeing Co.

21 F. Supp. 3d 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2014

The picture is very clearly an image of three Klansmen. It is undisputed that the photograph depicts Barker, Boyd and Smith. See JA 91-95, 112-16, 431. … The complete prima facie case as described in Makky has four components: A plaintiff must show that (1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain; (3) s

United States v. FMC Corporation

306 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1969

Pa., 1964), aff’d 363 F.2d 62 (3rd Cir. 1966), are clearly inapplicable. … They also discussed among themselves Hooker’s definition of quantities qualifying for shipment by barge and reached an informal consensus that a 250 ton “lighter” should not qualify for the special barge rate offered by competitors

SHRIEVES v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2020

While there, he asked the shelter’s supervisor how a woman qualifies for the shelter’s services. (Id. at ¶ 23.) … deferred compensation plan established for PFMC employees qualifies as an eligible deferred compensation plan applicable to employees of a “State, political subdivision of a State, and any agency or instrumentality