Case law

STEIN v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2024

Turning first to the disparate treatment claim, while it is undisputed that each of the Plaintiffs is over the age of 40 and each was clearly qualified for the positions which they held for over twenty-five years,6 the … remaining prima facie elements have not been established.

DANNUNZIO v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2021

customers into identifying family members as a matter of policy and practice so that it can deceitfully obtain consumer reports about those family members and review those reports to gauge whether those family members qualify … Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241, 248 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that a willful violation of the FCRA occurs when defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time

United States v. Werdene

188 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2016

The court in Farrell held that “[u]nder these circumstances Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network.” … The court stated: Whereas Scott effectively required the government to qualify for an exception to the general rule of suppression, the Supreme Court has since emphasized that the decision to exclude evidence is divorced

HENDERSON v. MATTHEWS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2020

As noted above, the undisputed facts establish that Helen Henderson had smashed a wine bottle on Alisha Henderson’s head and police found Alisha Henderson lying on the floor “in a pool of … immunity is without merit.

TOHIDI v. CITY OF READING POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2024

Disability Discrimination – Review of Applicable Law “[E]mployers are prohibited from discriminating ‘against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to … alleged discrimination claims are closely connected to the facts underlying the retaliation claims, courts have deemed the retaliation claims fairly within the scope of an EEOC investigation, notwithstanding the failure to clearly

POWELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

When the government's legal position clearly offends legal precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be “substantially justified.” Washington v. … But the Supreme Court did not define what ​ ​ qualifies as a “timely challenge.” See id.

Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc.

948 F. Supp. 436 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1996

Indeed, the two major cases from the Supreme Court which have found state action under this test are clearly distinguishable from the case sub judice. See, Adickes v. S.H. … The First Amendment affords not the slightest support for the contention that a combination to restrain trade in news and views has any constitutional immunity. Associated Press, 326 U.S. at 20, 65 S.Ct. at 1425 .

FLACCO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2025

But, returning to the Ranking Officers’ present motion, the City and its agents argue Ranking Officers Flacco and Singletary: (1) cannot establish predominance or commonality because each putative class member’s claims … Whether and to what extent Ranking Officers performed “unpaid emergency” work cannot be established through common evidence.

WOJCIECHOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

When the government's legal position clearly offends legal precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be “substantially justified.” Washington v. … But legal ​ ​ questions continued because the Supreme Court did not define what qualifies as a “timely challenge.”

Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Dawson

514 B.R. 768 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2014

On March 6, 2012, the court in the Philadelphia action issued a scheduling order in anticipation of a final order that would declare whether the payments made to the arbitrator inclusive of the advance deposit were immune … A factual finding is clearly erroneous if the district court is firmly convinced, based on all of the evidence, that the bankruptcy court made a mistake. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8013 Advisory Committee’s Note.

FISCHBEIN v. IQVIA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2025

“It is well established that ‘when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts . . . is to enforce it according to its terms.’” Lamie v. U.S. … The plain language of this provision clearly distinguishes between the equipment used to send the advertisement and that used to receive the advertisement.

In re Alleged Prohibited Political Activity Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority

443 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1977

The Commission need not establish the relevancy of the information sought. … A party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in any agency proceeding.

In Re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia

170 B.R. 257 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 1994

In order to qualify for the relief available under § 105(a), the movant must properly apply for such injunc-tive relief in accordance with the procedures set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 7065 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure … Neither based its decision upon a clearly articulated standard. Indeed, none of the eases upon which both relied announced a generally applicable standard.

Di Loreto v. Costigan

600 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2009

must be engaged in longstanding business in the forum state, such as marketing or shipping products, or performing services or maintaining one or more offices there; activities that are less extensive than that will not qualify … Clearly, the intent of § 7419 is not to prevent creditors— subject to judgment by the Liquidator— from opposing the Liquidator’s collection efforts.

UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Northstar Anesthesia of Pennsylvania, LLC

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

The patient qualified for Medicaid. The health insurer declined payment beyond the amount owed under Medicaid. … Judge Scott reasoned if she read the No Surprises Act in the manner suggested by Anthem, there would be “no limits on judicial review of [Independent Dispute Resolution entities’] eligibility determinations, . . . clearly

Gharzouzi v. Northwestern Human Services of Pennsylvania

225 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2002

Unlike in Gulezian , here, from the start, the EEOC unequivocally and consistently referred to Plaintiffs communications as a “charge” without qualifying the initiation of a charge of discrimination as a possible future event … Objective Effect of Discrimination In addition, Plaintiff fails to establish the fourth Andrews prong.

Scicchitano Smith v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2022

This testimony would clearly help the trier of fact understand the evidence presented regarding the aquarium tank and thus fits the case. … Plaintiffs counter that Flaherty relied on the established scientific method and the National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 921 guide for fire investigations in forming his

DEAN v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2021

To establish a prima facie case for discrimination against an employer, a plaintiff must show: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and … Even if Dean has to show he was qualified to be a Cadet, his qualification for that role remains disputed.

Balkiewicz v. WAWA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2021

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under these statutes, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, (2) she is a “qualified individual,” and (3) she suffered … Such a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by showing that: (1) the plaintiff was qualified for the position, (2) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the

Doe v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

270 F. Supp. 3d 799 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2017

In other words, the tort is reserved “for only the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct.” Id. … Under this standard, a plaintiff may “establish physical harm or injury as physical manifestations of a psychic injury” by establishing “‘symptoms of severe depression, nightmares, stress and anxiety, requiring psychological