Case law

BEAUREGARD v. BROADWAY ELECTRIC SERVICE CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2022

Jd; see also 29 U.S.C. § 218 (providing that the FLSA does not “excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under [ … The Court finds that decision to be persuasive, notwithstanding BESCO’s repeated assertions that LaRue was “wrongfully decided, and clearly so.” (ECF No. 9, pp. 4, 13-21).

PORTER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

(inmates locked down for 23 hours a day, no showers or other activity, no fruit to support their immune systems, not enough cleaning supplies). … Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 271 (3d Cir. 2003) (acknowledging 14 The County Defendants also argue that all of the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

Resco Products, Inc. v. Bosai Minerals Group Co.

158 F. Supp. 3d 406 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2016

The specific prices in the proposals voted on at the Bauxite Branch meetings cited by plaintiff clearly indicate they were not in reference, to the prices to be charged to buyers. … A market with that many participants does not qualify as an oligopoly.

United Mine Workers v. Florence Mining Co.

855 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1994

Second, they argue that the closure of the Heshbon Mine and the Coal Preparation Facility did not qualify as either a “plant closing” or a “mass layoff” because it did not cause “employment loss” to “fifty or more employees … Thus, because the third prong of the Hunt test is not a component of the “irreducible minimum” under the Constitution and because § 2104(a)(5) clearly evidences a congressional intent to authorize union suits on behalf of

BOODOO

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

According to AMP management and other employees, Plaintiff was qualified for his job and performed it well. (Id. at 5). … Plaintiff added that Butler’s workplace conduct goes to establishing pretext via comparator evidence and that she is, in fact, an appropriate comparator. (Id. at 22-23).

WASHINGTON v. PATRONE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2023

Statute of Limitations Congress has not established a time limitation for a § 1983 cause of action. Wilson v. … Specifically, he appears to state that to save money, the DOC does not employ qualified mental health professionals nor do they provide mentally ill inmates with the same quality treatment that they would receive if they

Walney v. SWEPI LP

311 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2018

Ct. 2000) ). 7 Here, plaintiffs contend that all *707 three elements of the class's claims were established as a matter of law, while SWEPI contends that none of the elements can be established based on the uncontroverted … The Drafts are clearly collection items, as noted by the language "payable through collecting bank (Amegy Bank N.A.)."

STOLTIE v. CERILLI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

Accordingly, the 112 and 113 Orders are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Equal Empl. Opportunity Commn. v. … As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Defendants concurred that Plaintiff had a qualifying disability and that the activities from which he was excluded were services, programs, or activities of a public entity.

GODWIN v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON, LP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2023

In order to state a state a prima facie case in a failure to hire scenario, a plaintiff must: establish that (1) he belongs to a protected category; (2) he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer … Clearly, the parties tell two different versions of Godwin’s efforts to seek employment 9 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/technical-assistance-manual-employment-provisions-title-i- americans-disabilities-act (visited

American International Underwriters Corp. v. Zurn Industries, Inc.

771 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1991

At the outset, we note that the parties’ positions on choice-of-law issues have not been clearly staked out. In fact, they are internally inconsistent. … In February 1990, however, Pennsylvania established a statutory cause of action for such conduct, providing for punitive damages, interest, attorney fees and costs as well as prejudgment interest. 42 PaCS § 8371 (1990).

NEWTON v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2022

Newton was not qualified for the position [of Trooper] and could not perform the essential duties of a Trooper.” ECF No. 148 at 2- 3. … The PSP also clearly stated that the law does not require the PSP to keep Newton “merely because it previously accommodated him.” ECF No. 148 at 3-4. 117.

MCGUIRE v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2025

Plaintiff qualified for long term disability benefits under a Group Voluntary Long Term Disability Benefits policy (the “Policy”) sponsored by 98 Ventures and administered by Defendant. (Docket No. 10- 1). … In the present case, the Court finds that the Policy clearly and unequivocally grants Defendant discretionary authority to construe the Policy and to determine eligibility for benefits.

BAUM v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2019

But Johnson-Sanders is not a medical professional and is not qualified to decide if a treating doctor’s narrative is irrelevant to an insured’s medical condition. … Both Behrens and Grant permitted reexamination of immunity questions because, unlike at the 5 MetLife offers several reasons to revisit this question.

BROWN v. GARMON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2019

For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000). a. … The record clearly established that counsel had a reasonable basis for not presenting the alibi evidence.

Jakomas v. McFalls

229 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2002

The Amended Complaints do not establish facts that would allow us to balance the employer’s interests. … If the relief sought is other compensation instead of reinstatement, that relief is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Burney v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CTY. OF BEAVER

551 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1982

Thus, the quota plans clearly were designed and necessary to prevent incipient racial segregation at the two high schools. b.) precise tailoring of quota plan Our finding that the Housing Authority has failed to meet its … Once plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to defendant to establish a justification for acts resulting in discriminatory effects.

LOMAX v. GILMORE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2020

In only the extraordinary case will a petitioner be able to establish a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Petitioner does not argue that his case qualifies. It clearly does not. … The “clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), in which to analyze this claim is set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

BECK v. BROOKVILLE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2021

It requires a showing that: (1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he/she was qualified for the position; (3) he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) under … Thus, the comments qualify as “stray remarks” and are entitled to minimal weight. See Ezold v.

EAVES

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2018

A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal– (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … A comparison of both the Amended Complaint in the Previous Case and the Proposed Third Amended Complaint with the instant Complaint also reveals that the instant Complaint is clearly repetitious of the Amended Complaint

United States v. Brewer

373 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1974

Brewer indicated clearly that he was unable to pay such an amount and, therefore, the services of an expert were never made available to Mr. Brewer; 4. That Mr. … Agent William Newbrough of the Washington Office, a Document Examiner, qualified by special training and study in such examination, examined the particular money order payable to Emma Cylesta which was enclosed in a plastic