Case law

In Re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

52 B.R. 997 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1985

After denying a Motion to Stay filed by USWA, we established an expedited briefing schedule relative to its appeal. … The Company has difficulty finding qualified replacements. No further sacrifices in this sector are warranted.

MADER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2026

do not qualify as an ‘atypical or significant hardship’ under Sandin”). She also cannot plausibly allege a protected interest in hypothetical future employment opportunities, see Bryan v. … 1975) (“an inmate’s expectation of keeping a particular prison job” does not amount to a protected liberty or property interest); Baraka, 481 F.3d at 205 (“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly

Copperleaf Food Group, Richland LLC v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP; Richland Zamagias Limited Partnership

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2026

factors” are established does the district court consider the remaining two factors. … See ECF No. 61-2 at 7 (providing that “[t]he rights, privileges or immunities conferred” under the easement agreement “are for the benefit of the Owners and any tenants or permittees of such Owners[.]”).

GOODIN v. SMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2021

While the Amended Complaint more clearly references the legal standard for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, more clearly states which constitutional rights Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated, and … Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not even reference, let alone set out sufficient facts to show, a policy or custom of Butler County that could plausibly establish Plaintiff’s ability to recover damages from this Defendant

VANDERVOORT v. NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2024

□ Vandervoort has established that she is female, was qualified for her job, and was subject to an adverse employment action when she was terminated. … Thus, to succeed on a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must first establish that she (1) was over the age of 40; (2) was qualified for the position she sought to retain or attain; (3) suffered an

MORROW v. DOE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2024

A claim is frivolous if it: (1) is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or, (2) contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”

FASSETT v. POPE FRANCIS OF VATICAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2022

(B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (1i) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” … A claim is frivolous if it: 1) is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or, 2) contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

Rubano v. Farrell Area School District

991 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, the employee must show that he (1) is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is qualified to perform the essential functions of his … Article VI Section 3 clearly states, “No outside help (paid help) will be used where and when the employees of said district can furnish such help”.

SIMON v. UPMC MERCY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2021

Simon is a “qualified individual” under the ADA. Lastly, UPMC argues that Mrs. Simon cannot establish her prima facie claim of discrimination. ECF 28, pp. 16-22. … Simon has not established she is a “qualified individual,” because she failed to present evidence that she was “able to perform the essential job functions of a Lead Patient Care Technician without additional reasonable

KLING v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2021

Kling argues that “[t]he record evidence clearly establishes that there was substantial disagreement among UPMC performance evaluating faculty members whether Dr. … (concluding that plaintiff did not prove he was qualified to be promoted to a third-year resident because he offered no evidence to establish that he was qualified for promotion except to dispute every less-than-laudatory

URBASSIK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2026

Appx. 84, 87 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[W]e agree that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment, and that it is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.”). … A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when

Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

878 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2012

He said that the lack of such requirements was possibly the result of an assumption that the individuals KBR hired would be qualified to perform electrical work. (Id.). … Although the United States is not a party to this case and is immune from any lawsuit brought against it by Staff Sergeant Maseth’s estate and any contribution action brought against it by KBR, given the facts established

FALLECKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2020

[GCS] shall be responsible for formulating a cleaning schedule that ensures that all quality and timeliness standards established by the government are attained.” (Id. at 12, Section 2.3.1). … Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the contract clearly delegated to GCS all daily maintenance of all areas listed in the “Custodial Requirements,” which included cleaning up spills in the cafeteria where Plaintiff

Brandt v. Burwell

43 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2014

Second, the regulation itself clearly announces that the alternatives to the current regulations—including the contraceptive mandate—would not advance the Government’s interests “as effectively as” the contraceptive mandate … An entity that offers a health plan to its employees that is administered by a qualified religious employer must independently qualify for the religious employer exemption to be exempt. 78 Fed.Reg. 39,886; see also 78 Fed.Reg

Zubik v. Sebelius

983 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2013

The 2013 Final Rules’ “Accommodation” The 2013 final rules establish regulations regarding the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by “eligible organizations.” 78 Fed.Reg. at … An entity that offers a health plan to its employees that is administered by a qualified religious employer must independently qualify for the religious employer exemption to be exempt. 78 Fed.Reg. 39,886; see also 78 Fed.Reg

Hogan v. Raymond Corp.

777 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2011

Plaintiff seeks to clarify his claim against Raymond under the malfunction theory of liability, under which a plaintiff can establish a product liability case without the defective equipment. … Ann. 481(b) clearly states “ ‘the employer ... shall not be liable’ to a third party. This is plainly a rule of substantive tort law, not of procedure.

RUFFIN v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 2022

It is possible that the Commonwealth may have had more facts establishing that Mr. … Based on the foregoing, the Shepard documents on the whole do not establish that Mr. Ruffin’s conviction for “robbery” under either subsection “(i) or (ii)” clearly rests on one subsection over the other.

In Re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

308 B.R. 716 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2004

In order to establish insurer liability, the ACC and the FCR will have to claim against Corning or the Corning Fund that is to be established under the plan. … The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that Cabot and NGK were joint defendants because they clearly shared a legal interest since the suit sought to establish the liability of both

J.L. ex rel. J.L. v. Ambridge Area School District

622 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2008

To withstand the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must set forth sufficient facts to establish that: (1) he is disabled as defined by the Act; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities … The Third Circuit has clearly held, however, that a plaintiff need not prove that defendants’ discrimination was intentional.

Brown v. Richardson

395 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1975

Furthermore, we find that this case is clearly distinguishable from Ritter v. United States, supra. Publication of the pamphlet was not in any sense “a particular transaction.” … For example, even if the Secretary or his representative affirmatively misrepresented to plaintiff that deceased’s stay in a nursing home would qualify him for a new spell of illness (and therefore a new benefits period),