Case law

Pierre v. WOODS SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2021

Pierre must allege “(1) he invoked his right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to his invocation of rights.”24 To sufficiently allege … He reasoned the filing of an EEOC complaint is the protected activity in Blakney unlike an FMLA leave which is a period of protected activity consistent with our Court of Appeals’ “precedent clearly recogniz

POWERS v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2023

Under that framework, a plaintiff first has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglass, 411 U.S. at 802. … “[P]rotesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct.” Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996).

AstenJohnson v. Columbia Casualty Co.

483 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2007

June 16, 1999) (“In attempting to base a contract term or provision upon an industry custom or practice, the [moving party] has the burden of providing evidence that clearly establishes either that the other party has actual … Asten’s two eighteen-month policies each clearly extended a single aggregate limit to Asten.

Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandhu

291 F. Supp. 3d 659 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2018

In other words, the complaint must contain facts which, if proven later, support a conclusion that a cause of action can be established. … The complaint clearly alleges that the computer Sandhu accessed was connected to the Internet and used in interstate communication.

MOBLEY v. LABORATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2025

Finally, absent a variety of assessments, the December 2023 evaluation team failed to consider other qualifying disabilities like Autism . . . … Clearly, the IDEA’s implementing regulations as outlined supra demonstrate the importance of the IDEA’s procedural requirements.

HARRIS v. LITTLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2025

In their Motion, Defendants seek Summary Judgment, arguing, inter alia, that there exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the remaining claims and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Assuming arguendo that each of the Remaining Plaintiffs can establish a liberty interest, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on each claim because there exists no genuine dispute that each Remaining Plaintiff received

R.S. and R.S. v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2023

disturbance in need of special education and qualified to receive it. Dr. … Where a plaintiff establishes a likelihood of success on the merits and a threat of irreparable harm, “it ‘almost always will be the case’ that the public interest favors preliminary relief.” Id. (quoting Am.

KINNEY v. COUNTY OF BERKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2025

And even malice is not enough to establish liability; the conduct must be “clearly desperate and ultra extreme.” Hoy, 720 A.2d at 754. … Hashmi is not qualified to provide an opinion on Ms. Berger’s conduct because he is “a physician but not a mental health professional.” DI 59-1 at 32-33. Mr.

Liberty Resources, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

155 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2001

Section 12132 reads, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, … Thus standing under the Rehabilitation Act is dictated by Title VI which has clearly been held to allow organizations standing to bring suit. See e.g., Powell, 189 F.3d at 404 ; cf.

DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP. F/K/A DFB HEALTHCARE ACQUISITIONS CORP.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2022

These statements therefore do not qualify for safe harbor protection under the PSLRA. B. … Clearly organic growth as distinct from acquisition revenue was an important metric to the company.

TAYLOR v. THE SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SEPTA)

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

This is clearly a conclusion about the meaning and scope of the regulations. Indeed, in support of this point, Econome relies solely on the regulations, quoting multiple portions of Part 40. … Pa. 2010) (“The burden is on the proponent of the evidence—here the plaintiff—to establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.”).

BURNS v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2023

Ticketron, Inc., a case in which the court observed, as part of an analysis of whether the sale of tickets qualifies as a “commodity” under the Robinson- Patman Act, that “[a]dmission tickets have been uniformly defined … It does not establish that tickets cannot create contractual rights.

BEISHL v. COUNTY OF BUCKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2019

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Certainly, Beishl was terminated after his protected activity, so the second element is established.

CARR v. JEFFERSON DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

The parties agree that plaintiff has at least four years of qualifying service: 2003, 2010, 2011, and 2012. … Under the second option the limitations period clearly began to run, that is accrued, when plaintiff exhausted those procedures, not at some earlier period even if she knew or should have

ROBINSON v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2025

This element requires a plaintiff to allege facts to establish that state actors “used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed.” Kneipp v. … In sum, Plaintiff’s attempt to frame Defendant Fulton’s alleged conduct as an affirmative act by merely placing the word “affirmatively” before what clearly amounts to an assurance, omission, and/or failure to act does

SPRING PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. RETROPHIN, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2019

In determining whether the corporation’s operations render it at home in the forum state, Courts consider several factors, including: whether the defendant is qualified or licensed to do business … Clearly, [Defendant] PHCI formed a substantial connection through the act of obtaining a license to provide home care and later doing business under that license.

C. v. Pennsbury School District

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2025

To begin, Plaintiff failed to allege who—if anyone—from Pennsbury established these policies. … Similarly, § 505 of the [Rehabilitation Act] clearly states that the remedies available under § 504 of the [Rehabilitation Act] shall be the same remedies available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Melton v. SAUL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2022

Pursuant to an earlier decision, Melton had been found to be disabled beginning in 2000 and qualified for SSI benefits. … ALJ Ryan’s succinct explanation of his medical improvement finding reveals that he focused upon Melton’s “anxiety and depressive symptoms” of major depressive disorder with dysthymia, which is clearly appropriate given

GROSSINGER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2026

Assuming for purposes of screening the Amended Complaint that Grossinger is a person with a disability, it is unclear that he has alleged that the named Defendants provide a place of public accommodation, and he clearly … “To state a claim under § 504, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was denied the benefits of a program or activity of a public entity which receives federal

National Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd.

254 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2003

Without being accessible to the *565 public, the Pritchard disclosure cannot qualify as prior art. … CONCLUSION Because NSC has established each of the requisite elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction, the Court will grant NSC’s motion.