Case law

Grove v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

176 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2016

To qualify for continued coverage, your spouse must have been married to you for at least one year at the time of your death. … The court explained as follows: *469 It cannot be said that the phrases clearly and expressly indicate vesting since there is simply no durational language to qualify these phrases.

Moore v. CVS Rx Services, Inc.

142 F. Supp. 3d 321 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The answer in this case is that Defendant clearly did not have such an obligation. … In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) [s]he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions

Dockery v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2025

To establish a claim under Section 1983, two criteria must be met. First, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc v. … Despite earlier instructions from the court, Dockery’s amended complaint fails to include allegations that Defendant JP Morgan Chase qualifies as a state actor for Section 1983 purposes.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commonwealth

596 F. Supp. 1333 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1984

Clearly, in certain businesses, particular occupations will exist that will require a separate BFOQ analysis. … 34 would not be minimally qualified.

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2024

(subject to enumerated statutory exceptions, sovereign immunity includes immunity from liability for negligence) (citing McGrath, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 511). … While Nelson clearly alleges that decedent informed DOC officials of his history with mental illness and suicidality, (see Doc. 14 ¶¶ 26, 28), she also acknowledges that he received some degree of professional attention

Wilkes Barre Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union, No. 137 v. Great Northern Press

522 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1981

Yet the Court of Appeals was clearly influenced by the Mears dissent. … First, the proprietor clearly informed Dale that the provision was unacceptable to Great Northern.

McIntyre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983; state agencies do not qualify. See Will v. Mich. … Thus, Byrne cannot establish an injury or harm from this alleged lack of prosecution by | the State Police and consequently cannot plausibly state a negligence claim.

United States v. German

353 F. Supp. 1197 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1973

Since a high rate of standards are required to become a Christian minister, I will not be able to qualify until June. In three months, when I am fully qualified, I am entering pioneer service.” 20. … In both letters Defendant clearly-stated that he planned to enroll in the full time ministry in June.

Smith v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2023

Sovereign immunity extends to agencies of the United States, including the IRS, which is immune from suit in the absence of Congressional authorization. City of Whittier v. … The tax credit was treated as an “advance refund,” meaning qualified individuals would directly receive the rebate as an economic impact payment or so-called “stimulus check” when an eligible individual filed a tax return

Harris v. Commonwealth of Pa.

419 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1976

During that period she maintains that on several occasions she was passed up for promotions to supervisory positions based solely on her sex and in favor of less qualified males. … Clearly the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is pot a “person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and as such these entities are not properly subject to suit in a claim brought under that Act. Monroe v.

Johnson v. Federal Express Corp.

996 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2014

First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, that: (1) he or she was a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified for the position … Thus, a courier clearly must possess greater qualifications to perform his or her job than a service agent.

Cox v. Mason

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2024

Cox does not include any specific allegations □□ wrongdoing that would establish personal involvement by either Commonwealth defendant in the purported violations. … but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, determine whether Congress’ purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid.” Bowers v.

YINGLING v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2020

Discussion The moving defendants first argue that the DOC and SCI Camp Hill are immune from suit based on sovereign immunity.3 The Eleventh Amendment provides … To state a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) he or she is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he or she is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service

Mickell v. Geroulo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2020

claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing … immunity has been applied to court support personnel due to ‘the danger that disappointed litigants, blocked by the doctrine of absolute immunity from suing the judge directly, will vent their wrath on clerks

Jones v. Boone

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2023

to override that immunity. … The Court finds that the two exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity do not apply here.

National Dental Council v. Pennsylvania, State Board of Dentistry

677 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1987

Lynne has established the requisite standing. … Under the most elementary rules of standing, jurisdiction, and case or controversy, Gavett qualifies as a plaintiff. Id. at 1041 .

United States v. Thomas

686 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 1988

Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 , the Supreme Court remarked, “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. … In Stana , the Third Circuit ruled that a school district’s established policy provided a teacher with a property right to remain on an eligibility list which in effect resembles the list of finalists compiled by defendant

Butler v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2024

Commonwealth parties acting within the scope of their employment generally are immune from suit except when immunity is explicitly waived.63 Pennsylvania’s General Assembly has carved out certain limited exceptions … Nor may Butler include the negligence claims that are barred by state statutory immunity.

Knapp v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2020

As noted above, the Health Center is one of the sites operated by WMCHC, which is a federally qualified health center, and receives funding from HHS. … established by a declaration affirming that the defendant was a PHS official during the relevant time period.”).

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities v. TitleMax of Delaware, Inc.

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

To determine whether a state agency is an “arm or alter ego” of the state for establishing diversity jurisdiction, courts apply Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis. Id. … Defendants also do not address the three-part Eleventh Amendment immunity test established by the Third Circuit.