Case law

Handley v. Phillips

715 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1989

. § 8541 et seq. provides immunity as to the alleged state law claims. … The Plaintiffs first alleged that the positions for sergeant and corporal were open but that Plaintiff Handley was not seriously considered to fill the vacancies and male candidates either less qualified or equally qualified

Wilkie v. Luzerne County

207 F. Supp. 3d 433 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2016

First, a plaintiff seeking recovery pursuant to the ADA must establish a prima facie case of dis *437 crimination by demonstrating that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform … Plaintiffs prima facie case A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of ADA disability discrimination when he demonstrates that: 1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; 2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the

Tucker v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Doe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2026

Consequently, child welfare workers enjoy absolute immunity for some functions and qualified immunity for others. See | Buckley v. … App'x at 104 | (evaluating child welfare workers’ absolute immunity for some conduct and | qualified immunity for other conduct); Odd, 538 F.3d at 207—08 (“we begin with the presumption that qualified rather than absolute

Thomas v. Duvall

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2019

immunity, the Court concludes that, at this stage of the proceedings, they are not. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 743-44 (2002) (noting violation of regulations governing conduct of prison officials is relevant to determine whether prisoner’s constitutional right was clearly established); Young v.

The Estate of Winifred Klee v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

Finally, the defendants argue that the court should dismiss any claims against defendant Hinton based upon qualified immunity. … Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied to the extent they argue that defendant Hinton is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Witmer

835 F. Supp. 208 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1993

. § 3733 (authorizing and establishing the procedure for the use of CIDs in False Claims Act cases). … These individuals clearly were in a position to have information relevant to the Department investigation.

Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College

431 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1977

Nossen is entitled to immunity from damages for failure to provide Skehan with a hearing if he can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner. … Nossen acted reasonably and did not violate a clearly established constitutional right when he terminated Skehan without affording him a prior hearing.

Wolfe v. City of Sunbury

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2025

These failings are dispositive to the pending motion.”), 18-19 (“Concerningly, Plaintiffs also failed to provide any briefing in opposition to Wojciechowski’s qualified immunity defense.”), 39 (“Wolfe has waived his … CONCLUSION Plaintiffs failed to brief in opposition to Wojciechowski’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. Cigna Property & Casualty Co.

956 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 1996

Rheumatoid arthritis is a condition which is marked by an abnormality in the immune system in which one portion of the immune system attacks another. The onset of this condition is not related to the trauma. … The defendant clearly produced expert and other evidence which, when considered with all the evidence, preponderates in its favor and establishes its right to judgment.

Robertson

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2026

He also argues that the report erroneously denies McGowan qualified immunity. (Id. at 13–17.) … a failure to intervene was not raised against County Defendants which may have not been clearly established in the Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 149, p. 17.)

Zvonek v. Walters

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2024

Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Walters | The Dickson City Defendants argue that qualified immunity applies to Defendant Walters, and he should be dismissed from the case. … Also pending in this case is a motion for | summary judgment which also raises the qualified immunity defense.

Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Environment v. Volpe

381 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1974

It is also well established “that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Employees v. … A state may, of course, waive its immunity from suit, Parden v.

White v. United States Dept. of Interior

639 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1986

Plaintiffs still would be confronted with the problem of establishing a right to enforce the agreement against the United States. … For example, the actual authority vested in O’Hare to enter into settlement agreements is clearly a question of federal law. See e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 0.160-61 . 4 .

Cyr v. Schuylkill County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … To overcome a qualified immunity analysis, the right must be clearly established at the time of the conduct. See Urda, 146 F.4th at 313 (citation omitted).

Delaware Valley Conservation Association v. Resor

269 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 1967

In 1965, as an integral part of the Tocks Island Reservoir Project, Congress authorized the establishment of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Secretary of the Army was authorized to acquire properties … If a plaintiff is to contend that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable even though the defendant officials on the surface apppear to be acting properly, then that plaintiff should clearly and expressly set

Webb v. Susquehanna Township School District

93 F. Supp. 3d 343 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2015

To establish a claim under this section, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct violated a right, privilege, or immunity … However, it is well-established that an exception may be made “where the complaint facially shows noncompliance with the limitations period and the affirmative defense clearly appears on the face of the pleading.”

Christopher v. Nestlerode

373 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2005

This link between causation and qualified immunity is not often drawn, but, provided that relevant distinctions between the two concepts are maintained, it is fully consistent with proper application of both doctrines. … This is, of course, the standard for qualified immunity and is properly viewed as an affirmative defense to be asserted by the de *520 fendant, rather than an element of the plaintiffs cause of action under § 1983.

Robinson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2025

Indeed, the defendant even admits the plaintiff “was qualified for the position obtained by Tonelotti.” (Doc. 24, at 10). … A plaintiff must establish she is: (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position she sought to attain or retain; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under

Ivy v. Harry

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation