Case law

Pini v. First Unum Life Insurance

981 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2013

The letter explained that the limitations established by Pini were “specific to her job with her employer.” Id. at 42 . … Waheed clearly opined that Pini could perform the duties of her own occupation for a different employer. ECF No. 35-4 at 22-23. It was Dr.

WIELAND

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2026

Such relief is not subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (citations omitted). … Claims concerning allegedly improper medical treatment, excessive force, or unconstitutional conditions of confinement do not, without more, establish discrimination under the ADA. See Iseley v. Beard, 200 Fed.

BARSODY v. CLEARFIELD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2022

Finally, Barsody did not check the very clearly displayed box for “RETALIATION” in the EEOC charge, while he did check the box for “DISABILITY.” … Given that Barsody failed to establish an ADA recognized disability with any substantiation, and that the existence of a disability is quintessential to his allegations, the Court finds he has not established a plausible

Marinelli v. City of Erie

25 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1998

The City of Erie clearly did not meet this burden. … With regard to any claim the plaintiff may have for social security and pension benefits, he has presented no evidence to establish any losses in either category. Should Mr.

SULLIVAN v. EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2024

A court “may not grant the motion unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and the PHRA, a plaintiff must “show (1) that [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA [or the PHRA], (2) that [s]he is otherwise qualified

HALL, II v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2020

Specifically, the Commonwealth did not offer sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner acted without the alleged victim’s consent. 3. That this Honorable Court erred in qualifying Dr. … The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that this precise language comports with the “clearly established” federal standard governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims set forth in Strickland v.

Carroll v. Acme Truck Line, Inc.

992 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2014

show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her former position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination … This clearly constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

United States v. Conley

859 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 1994

Baldwin Road affidavit, at 3 — 4, ¶ 6. 5.The Baldwin Road affidavit indicates that a Cooperating Witness (“C.W.”) was granted immunity on April 24, 1991, has provided information to law enforcement officers and prosecutors … The Baldwin Road affidavit clearly sets forth C.W.’s basis of knowledge — active participation over a long period in the crime detailed in the Baldwin Road affidavit.

DAY v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2021

Day was not qualified for the position of deputy sheriff and the County was not his employer, the County’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted. … The statutory schemes, as discussed above, clearly granted Sheriff Held the independent ability to hire, suspend, and terminate Mr. Day as a deputy sheriff.

Chambers Development Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries

590 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 1984

Though not as easy to establish, mere associations of a group of individuals also qualify as “enterprises.” See e.g. United States v. … As legal corporate entities, BFI, Mazzaro, Inc. and Horse Trucking, Inc. clearly fall within the first category of an “enterprise” as defined by section 1961(4).

REED v. SOSSONG

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2022

Here, as Defendants aptly note, Plaintiffs have produced no evidence suggesting that the plan at issue in this case is an ERISA qualified, self- funded plan. … Here, the first three exceptions clearly do not apply.

MCGILL v. BOYLES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2023

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he does not plead their personal involvement in any underlying wrong, and they are entitled to qualified immunity.* The Court ordered Plaintiff … In order to establish a prima facie claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, Plaintiff must show (1) that “the conduct which led to the retaliation was constitutionally protected’; (2) “he suffered some ‘adverse

ZORTEA v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2023

Jackson, 964 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 2020) Under Supreme Court precedent with regard to seemingly competing statutes, “‘when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed … MMWA § 2310(d)(1)(B) affords MMWA consumers an avenue to initiate qualifying class actions in federal court.

PRICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2026

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when “the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains ... and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rosenau v. … This statement clearly alerted Plaintiff to the existence of the possible issue at trial.

United States v. Conley

826 F. Supp. 1536 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 1993

Addressing this contention, the Court stated: - - It is Congress, and not the prosecution, which establishes and defines offenses. … The distinction in Miller was that the offense of conviction was fully and clearly set out by the grand jury in the indictment.

PROVINCE v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2021

Here, the documents at issue clearly qualify as “judicial records,” as Defendants seek leave to file them with the Court for incorporation into the adjudicatory proceedings as exhibits in support of their motion to dismiss … any clearly defined and serious injury that would result from public disclosure, either to Defendants or to OneMain.

AMERICAN GLASS MACHINERY, LLC v. OTT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025

Through these tasks, Riley gained access to AGM’s trade secrets—including machine drawings, electrical schematics, and parts lists—all clearly marked as confidential. (Id. at 4 31-32). … Accordingly, the proprietary information qualifies as trade secrets that were protectible at this stage. 2.

JORDAN v. PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2022

The Third Circuit also rejected the plaintiff's generalized comity-related arguments in favor of remand: “It is well established that federal courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation...to exercise the … These terms were in bold letters and were clearly visible and unambiguous. The Terms of Use were in all capital letters and all bold. (/d. at pp. 6 and 21).

KATARI

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

First, the record indisputably establishes plaintiff received and had an opportunity to read defendant's ADR Acknowledgment form. … Clearly, plaintiff possesses a higher level of education and a basic understanding of business operations.

RESSLER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2019

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s hypertension, high cholesterol, restless leg syndrome, hyperlipidemia, and high blood pressure did not qualify as severe impairments. (R. 13-14). … The VE clearly testified that two such breaks would preclude gainful employment. (R. 61-62).