Case law

Jones v. Indiana Area School District

397 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2005

Waryck stated that he clearly remembered her coming -to him on one occasion, although she may have said something about it again. … Rather, the school district “must merely respond to known peer harassment in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable.” Id. at 649 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 .

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2021

Discussion PPG contends that reconsideration is warranted by “new” evidence that, in its view, conclusively establishes that Akzo was selling a non-infringing BPA-NI … Kearl, a damages expert, is not qualified to opine technically about whether the Akzo product infringes the Asserted Patents. Sherwin opposes reconsideration for numerous reasons.

Guthrie v. Baker

583 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2008

Mallinckrodt, Inc., 373 F.3d 923, 927-28 (8th Cir.2004) (after MacGregor was passed over for a promotion which was instead given to a less qualified male employee and after she rejected another position she was offered but … Further, the test applied is a multi-factor one with no bright-line rule, again in contrast with defenses which rely on absolute immunity or a statute of limitations.

JANOVSKY v. UPMC PRESBYTERIAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2023

the employer of the need for FMLA leave “sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of the leave.” 29 C.F.R … Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, since Rader herself was clearly considering whether a transfer for Plaintiff was appropriate at that time, it appears that such a transfer could have been possible.

MANUEL

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

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Plaintiff alternatively points to Capozza’s denial of Plaintiff’s facility-level internal grievance as sufficient to establish liability. Id.

BRANDON v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2023

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where “‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved’ and that it is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … including the nature of the action, the sort of relief being sought, the availability of information, and other practical considerations must guide the inquiry into whether the litigant’s statement of his claim qualifies

VENEY v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2020

In the employment discrimination context, a complaint that provides adequate facts to establish “how, when, and where” the discrimination occurred will satisfy the pleading standard. Fowler v. … Veney was qualified for the position at American Eagle because he has not described that position in any way. Mr.

BUTLER v. ZAKEN

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

Thus, “clearly established Federal law” is restricted to “the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. … This state rule also qualifies as “adequate” because it was firmly established and regularly followed in non-capital cases at the time of Petitioner’s PCRA appeal. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.

Ferens v. Deere & Co.

639 F. Supp. 1484 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1986

Enstrom Corp., 499 F.2d 146 (3d Cir.1974) (contract clause must clearly and unequivocally express intent necessary *1489 to exculpate defendant from negligence or strict liability claims). … The fact that Plaintiffs’ original lawsuit in this District Court did not include the claims which were time-barred under Pennsylvania law unequivocally establishes that Plaintiffs were seeking to maneuver around this by

MAJOR

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 2026

Kyler, 204 F.3d 6 Defendants argue that they are immune from Major's damages claims to the extent he brings them against them in their official capacity. See ECF No. 254, pp. 11-13. … of privileges, transfer to less desirable housing or institutions, issuance of false misconducts, confiscation of property, denial of program access, or other actions imposing more than de minimis hardship may qualify

Yeager v. UPMC HORIZON

698 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

Specifically, “an employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.” Id. … Abramson, 260 F.3d at 288 (“Temporal proximity ... is sufficient to establish the causal link.

DUBOIS COUNTRY CLUB, LTD v. DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2022

In offering this introductory information, the Court does not deem the Policyholders’ assertions established facts. … Hughes is qualified to opine as to the costs to rebuild the structure on the Property, for several reasons. First, Mr.

McClung v. Songer Steel Services, Inc.

1 F. Supp. 3d 443 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2014

Generally speaking, in order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he was a member of a statutorily-protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position at issue … No matter how light Songer Steel’s burden of production is under this prong, it is not weightless, since “[t]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for plaintiffs

DUELL v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2021

Defendant also repeatedly claims that after Rehaif, “§ 922(g)(1) no longer qualifies as a crime.” (See id. at 6; see generally Docket No. 3128). … To that end, Rehaif did not hold that felon in possession under § 922(g)(1) “no longer qualifies as a crime,” as Defendant repeatedly suggests.

Lámar v. Granger

99 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 1951

Collector is and has been the duly qualified Collector of Internal Revenue for the 23rd Collection District of Pennsylvania. … It is my judgment that the clear and unmistakable intent to part with the patent is clearly present here.

BOSCO v. PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2019

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to establish any of the elements required to establish a substantive due process violation. … In basic terms, that is all plaintiff can establish after full discovery.

SCOTT v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2020

Scott, should she choose to file an Amended Complaint, is directed to clearly and specifically allege facts that speak to the four-factor Anderson test as outlined by the Court. … establishment” constitutes a public accommodation under the ADA.

Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local No. 590 v. National Tea Co.

346 F. Supp. 875 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1972

only if it could confidently be said not only that a claim was strictly ‘procedural’, and therefore within the purview of the court, but also that it should operate to bar arbitration altogether, and not merely limit or qualify … It has long been established that where a defendant with notice of an injunction proceeding completes the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may restore the status quo. Texas and New Orleans Railway Co. v.

Project on Predatory Lending of the Legal Servs. Ctr. of Harvard Law Sch. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

325 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2018

Exemption 6 protects "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). … Qualified Persons." Confidentiality Protective Order ¶ 4.

FERGUSON v. TICE

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

Ferguson does not attempt to argue that the Superior Court’s ruling resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme … Ferguson does not attempt to argue that the Superior Court’s ruling resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme