Case law

Smith v. HOLY FAMILY UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2023

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that “she is [] qualified to perform the essential function of the job.” Taylor v. Phoenxville Sch. … Holy Family’s argument that the accommodation would “amount to indefinite leave” was clearly rejected by the jury based on the voluminous testimony and evidence presented at trial regarding Smith’s class schedules and her

Reed v. Board of Directors of City Trusts

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Defendant argues that these provisions establish a “clear” and “mandatory” grievance process and “designat[es] arbitration as the exclusive forum for . . . state and federal statutory … As noted above, Articles III and XVIII of the CBA do not clearly and unmistakably waive plaintiff’s right to seek damages in this court.

ABRAMS v. ERESEARCH TECHNOLOGY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2023

CUMCA established the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“CRC”) to “assume all powers, duties, and responsibilities with regard to the regulation and oversight of activities authorized pursuant to … Abrams contends, his medical marijuana status “clearly had a role” in ERT’s decision to fire him, it does not matter because the statute prohibits termination decisions based on that status.

CRAWFORD v. COUNTY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2024

Deputy Warden Roberts argues that the claims against him should be dismissed because he was not personally involved in the relevant events and, regardless, is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 11-13.) … In contrast, allegations of medical malpractice and mere disagreement regarding proper medical treatment are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation, see Spruill v.

DOE v. BRENNAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2020

entitled to qualified immunity. … Reid’s involvement in the alleged harassment and eventual termination are sufficiently pleaded to overcome any assertion of qualified immunity at this point in the litigation. See id. at 17-18.

LANZILOTTI v. SAUL

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

This evaluation report cannot qualify as a medical opinion entitled to the ALJ’s consideration because Dr. … While this court believes that the ALJ could have more clearly delineated her conclusions, to the extent the lack of clarity suggests the error of misstating evidence, such an error is harmless because she clearly stated

WILSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that Defendant had the requisite notice under the relation-back doctrine because allegations asserted by Plaintiff are insufficient to establish … As previously mentioned hereinabove, the Defendant’s name and address clearly appears at the top of Plaintiff’s pay stub.

Jackson v. United Airlines, Inc.

32 F. Supp. 3d 557 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2014

Jackson alleges that she was qualified for her position and had a satisfactory performance history. See id. ¶ 14. … The disparate impact claim clearly involves duties and rights created or defined by the CBA and LOA, and it does not involve rights that exist independently from those contracts.

J. v. COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2022

To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must establish another party’s knowledge that a federally protected right is substantially likely to be violated, and failure to act despite that knowledge. … In this instance, Plaintiffs failed to establish that Zachary was denied a FAPE. The administrative record fails to establish that any benefits were denied or that discrimination occurred.

Accurso v. Infra-Red Services, Inc.

23 F. Supp. 3d 494 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2014

Co., 991 A.2d 342, 347 (Pa.Super.Ct.2010)—especially when “Company” clearly appears to refer to “Infra Red Services Co.,” Contract 1 (emphasis added). … Thus, it clearly does not matter whether an officer of Infra-Red or its successor — here, allegedly, Ms. Strein — was a party to an agreement between Mr.

Rodriguez v. Lauren

77 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1999

In a “pretext” case, the plaintiff is required to make an initial showing of a prima facie case of discrimination comprising three elements: 1) that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, 2) that plaintiff was qualified … claims that the three white males who plaintiff alleges were hired to replace him were actually working for Advance Security 16 at the time Rodriguez was hired, and that therefore the claim the he was replaced by such men is clearly

SCHABACKER v. FERENS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2024

Pa. 2018) (editorial reviews of diet product by consumer review companies did not qualify as commercial speech for a Lanham Act claim); Crash Proof Ret., LLC v. Price, 533 F.Supp.3d 227 (E.D. … Ferens1 does not clearly show when she made the purported “accusations,” nor what the “accusations” were.

WESTMINSTER AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. Security National Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2021

Therefore, we conclude that Altman qualifies as an additional insured by virtue of being listed in the Policy’s Blanket Additional Insureds Schedule. … in Counts I, II, and III, as well as the related breach of contract of claims in Counts VII and VIII, based on SNIC’s failure to defend and indemnify Chester Ave. and Waldy, as a result of our conclusion that the ELE clearly

Reilly Foam Corp. v. Rubbermaid Corp.

206 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2002

Ferrante did not “hide” his intentions, however; he stated a number of new terms quite clearly in his letter of March 30. … Plaintiff must also establish the extent of its damages at trial. D.

JONES v. SORBU

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2021

However, absent evidence that Defendants deprived Jones of a federal right, privilege, or immunity, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has no authority to direct the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“Pa. … To the extent Jones is requesting the Court issue a temporary restraining order, we note that a temporary restraining order may only be granted if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

United States v. Norris

753 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2010

However, Kroef did clearly testify that the conversation with Defendant occurred after the subpoena was served and was triggered by the same. … Defendant cites no cases that come close to establishing otherwise.

RAMBERT v. KRASNER

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

Clearly Petitioner was misled and it was a NEED to preserve the claims and Petitioner was not led or warned of his rights to appeal. … Here, as Rambert has not identified his current habeas petition as a successive petition, he understandably does not attempt to explain how his petition could qualify as a proper second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C

BRAND DESIGN COMPANY, INC. v. RITE AID CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2024

As the Court previously explained, “[i]t is well established in this circuit that the disclosure of sensitive financial information is the sort of ‘clearly defined and serious injury’ warranting a departure from the presumption … As a starting point, see supra, it is well established that the disclosure of proprietary financial information can cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” Avandia, 924 F.3d at 672.

United States v. Klimek

952 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 1997

The above cases establish double jeopardy. Therefore the complaint of September 21, 1995 (cM No. 95-5971) is RES JUDI-CATA! … Jones, 877 F.Supp. 907, 912-13 (D.N.J.1995) (Certificates of Assessments and Payments granted a “presumption of correctness”); In re Garm, 114 B.R. 414, 416 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.1990) (certificates qualify as self-authenticating

MCMANUS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2021

Here, Plaintiff was over the age of forty at the time of his termination, thus, he qualifies as a member of a protected class. Pl. Br. at ¶ 2. … The Offer Letter clearly states that “[t]he nature of your employment with us is and will be ‘at-will.’” Def. Exhibit C (emphasis add).