Case law

J. v. KENNETT CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2023

To establish a violation of Section 504, Connor’s parents must prove that (1) Connor was disabled; (2) he was “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the District received federal financial assistance … The Hearing Officer correctly found that Connor’s PCA had “clearly become necessary in the remote learning environment.” (Hr’g Officer Op. 25.)

CARTER v. DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PA CIDDS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of race/national origin discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; … “[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).

MUDIE v. PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2022

Mudie Does Not Establish a Hostile Work Environment Claim Turning to the events that occurred within the applicable period, the Court must determine whether Mudie has established a hostile work environment claim. … The parties agree that Mudie is a member of a protected class, was qualified to be a medical assistant, and that her termination constitutes an adverse employment action.

FENICO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2022

This Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. … Plaintiffs cannot establish that the City arbitrarily enforced their Social Media Policy and violated their due process rights.

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation

98 F.R.D. 48 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1983

There clearly is no basis for a higher hourly rate in the time sheets. … Senefield re immunity grant & contrib. test. Sen.Com. re contribution.”

GIEDGOWD v. CAFARO GROUP, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2021

“Remittitur is the well-established device employed when the trial judge finds that a decision of a jury is clearly unsupported and/or excessive.”229 “A remittitur is a substitution of the court’s judgment … Giedgowd as more qualified than Ms.

ZELESNICK v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2021

Zelesnick cannot establish pretext. … Rather, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has clearly stated that such allegations state a claim for both interference and retaliation. See Erdman v. Nationwide Ins.

Malaika Williams v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

To state an ECOA claim, a plaintiff must allege she: (1) was a member of a protected class, (2) applied for credit from the defendant, (3) was qualified for the credit and (4) was denied credit despite her qualifications … App’x 68, 70–71 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (rejecting an ECOA claim where the plaintiff did not provide nonconclusory allegations sufficient to establish discrimination).

DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION v. OLEKSIAK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2020

The Secretary argues the Compact does not immunize the Commission from Pennsylvania building regulations, regardless of New Jersey’s view. … In our Compact Clause analysis, this Skelly principle does not define the sovereign’s ability to regulate a bi-state commission when the states clearly define the Commission’s powers and purposes as including power over

MARSHALL v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC

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

Plaintiffs clearly allege Prestamos’s failure to fund their loans is the cause of the injury. … The PPA incorporates federal law requirements that a drug manufacturer may not overcharge qualified health-care facility operators, such as the plaintiff. Id. at 113.

CARTMELL v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2020

The defendant argued that the debtor-plaintiff “did not suffer an injury in fact because he alleged only ‘procedural violations’ of the FDCPA” which “cannot qualify as ‘concrete’ injuries following the Supreme Court's decision … To require more would be to deprive debtor-plaintiffs of a remedy Congress clearly intended to confer. See Balon, 264 F. Supp. 3d at 610.

BONILLA v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

Bonilla alleges the Credit Union and agents violated Pennsylvania statutes regulating credit unions and Pennsylvania law on comparative negligence and defamation.10 Although not clearly pleaded in separate claims … Their reckless/grossly negligent conduct tantamount to fraud is an intentional tort falling outside of the regular scope and function of their employment sufficient enough to qualify them for individual liability.”47 As

Carroll v. Guardant Health, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

To establish pretext by the first Fuentes prong, Mr. … Carroll cannot: (1) establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination; (2) establish pretext; (3) establish a hostile work environment based on sex; and (4) establish retaliation.135 Mr.

DIXON v. SCHWEIZER

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

Anderson v. 5 In responding to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff acknowledges that the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act immunizes Pennsylvania municipalities from intentional tort claims and “moves to withdraw … Plaintiff cites “3 different occasions since 1999 whereby Defendant Schweizer exhibited lying, racist and/or other similar actions, which clearly was an abuse of his authority.” Id. at 13-14.

PUNZO v. SUGARHOUSE CASINO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2022

Let me tell you one thing I want to tell you, you’re not qualified for any job in this company, okay, none at all, and I’ll make sure of it.” (Id. at 104:7–15.) … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of national origin or age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified

McManus v. WALGREENS COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2022

This Court finds that Walgreens’s counsel’s actions clearly violated the spirit and letter of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and effected an unfair surprise. … Defense counsel clearly thought this evidence was significant at the time.

M. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

ECF No. 21-1 at 30, 14.7 But each goal was capable of objective measurement and the IEPs clearly described whether it would be measured as a percentage or an absolute number. … Section 504 To establish a violation under Section 504, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is “disabled” as defined by the statute; (2) she is otherwise qualified to participate

YOUST v. LANCASTER CITY BUREAU POLICE DEPT.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2021

the CM/ECF docketing system. 3 Specifically, the Court dismissed Youst’s claims against Magisterial District Judge Jodie Richardson and the Lancaster City Bureau of Police with prejudice on the basis of judicial immunity … To state a claim for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that he was arrested without probable cause. See Orsatti v. N.J.

REILLY v. SAUL

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

Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (32nd ed. 2012) (Dorland’s) at 1835. 4 The DLI is the last date on which, if a claimant has become fully disabled by the applicable regulatory standards, he or she qualifies … Her records establish that Reilly consulted with Dr. Patrick Brogle, an orthopedic surgeon, in August 2014. Id. at 507-08.

MCCOY v. SAUL

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

treating physician’s opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the [Administrative Law Judge] is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the [Administrative Law Judge] clearly … No. 20 at n.1 (“To qualify for [disability insurance benefits] claimants must establish their disability began before their [date last insured].”) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.130, 404.132; Jakubowski v. Comm’r of Soc.