Case law

KROHMER v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2021

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions … To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the plaintiff must show: (1) they belong to a protected class; (2) they were qualified for the position at issue; and (3) they were subject to an adverse employment

MCGUIRE v. NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2024

That article, Article XX, “establishes a regulatory scheme in Pennsylvania that prohibits insurance companies from cancelling, refusing to write, and refusing to renew automobile insurance policies for certain … And the One Product policy clearly does.

WHITEFIELD v. BERRYHILL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

that her depression qualifies as a severe impairment. … In making her argument, Plaintiff relies on subjective statements regarding her hearing testimony, but the ALJ clearly addressed such testimony and explained why the record as a whole does not support a finding of limitations

SITTER v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 2, 2025

Similarly, to establish a prima facie case of associational discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (2) she was qualified for her job at the time … Apr. 4, 2022) (finding that plaintiff failed to allege a joint employer relationship where he did not clearly allege who had the authority to hire or fire him; who paid his salary; who was in charge of his daily tasks,

United States v. Conley

856 F. Supp. 1034 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1994

James Girard, a qualified expert in gambling prosecutions in nine different counties in Pennsylvania. 2. … In context, the facts recited in the affidavits clearly support an inference that troopers received or witnessed pay-offs several days before the signing of the affidavit.

Payne v. DeLuca

433 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2006

Litig., 357 F.3d 322 , 331 (3d Cir.2004)) are insufficient establish scienter. … See In re Immune Response Secs., Litig., 375 F.Supp.2d 983, 1035-1036 (S.D.Cal.2005) and cases cited therein. *598 Here, in addition to general warnings relevant to any company in the contracting and engineering business,

United States v. Crews

385 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2019

With respect to the kinds of sentences available and sentencing range established by the guidelines, the court explained: This was the most difficult issue here, and that's because we've had, as you sat through and heard … Thus, the initial procedural error was harmless because the record clearly shows that the District Court imposed a sentence that was not premised at all upon the otherwise applicable advisory guidelines range. Id.

SELTZ v. SWEPI LP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

The statute clearly states, however, that a “claim” includes the filing of a disputed suit not yet reduced to judgment. … But that theory fails to establish actual legal damage for at least two reasons.

BOWDEN v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2025

In this Court’s estimation, such an assertion clearly implicates duties, such as the provision of notice or suitable alternatives, purportedly owed by the providers under the putative class members’ plans. … administration of a health benefit plan, i.e., which pharmacies qualify as “in-network” pharmacies. Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim is preempted by ERISA.

BRIAN W. AND CARLA v. RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2021

The common law thus merely establishes a presumption of public access to court proceedings and court records. Id. at 602, 98 S.Ct. at 1314. … However, the Insurance Companies clearly seek to unseal “documents submitted to the arbitration panel that set the value of the settlement of [the immediate] case . . . .”

GAINES v. BRITTAIN

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

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the familiar clearly established federal law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. … 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).

GENESS v. COUNTY OF FAYETTE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2020

immunity.17 Detective Cox answered Mr. … The Limited Guardian opines allocating $214,363.26 to a special needs trust established for Mr.

DAVIS v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC

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

It is well established that “[a] plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg, 778 F. Supp. 2d 573, 587 (W.D. … If a letter does not qualify as “debt collection activity,” it cannot violate the FDCPA. See McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, 756 F.3d 240, 245 (3d Cir. 2014).

FROBE v. UPMC ST. MARGARET

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2023

That said, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Johnstown Heart & Vascular Ctr., Inc. v. … Capriotti is qualified to testify to the opinion set forth in his report: “that Dr.

WEST v. DOCUSIGN, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2019

Dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(1) only when “the claim clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or. . . is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” … Regarding MetLife, the disability benefits that Ford challenges do not qualify as a public accommodation and thus do not fall within the rubric of Title III.

GARY v. HLADIK ONORATO & FEDERMAN LLP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2020

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint clearly does not qualify for either of the exceptions to Rule 12(g)(2). … Super. 2008) (“To qualify as a negotiable instrument, an agreement must be for a ‘fixed amount.’ PNC Bank v. Bolus, 655 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1995).

ALLEN v. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

In order to establish a prima facie case of pretextual sex discrimination, Allen must “show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her former position; (3) she suffered an adverse … § 2704 may be established if “the employee claiming discrimination . . .

FRANKOVICH v. PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

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

Fearbry Jones, PPS has an established process for reclassifying a position. … Frankovich is a member of a protected class or (2) that she was/is qualified for the position at issue. See ECF No. 43 at 7.

Baum v. ASTRAZENECA LP

605 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Both the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Act establish requirements that workers must be paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty per week. 43 P.S. § 333.104(c); 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1). … Ms. *676 Baum emphasizes that given the Court’s duty to construe the exemption narrowly, she does not fit clearly and unmistakably within the exemption’s terms.

SVENTEK v. OBERLANDER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2022

No showing of prejudice on the order of manifest injustice can be established. … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.