Case law

Kutska v. California State College, Department of Education

410 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1976

Kutska may be qualified to teach Russian, this does not automatically qualify him to head the Slavic Studies Program. … Clearly, defendant’s only objective was to obtain the most qualified individual possible for this position, regardless of his race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

Johnson v. Community College of Allegheny County

566 F. Supp. 2d 405 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defense With respect to plaintiffs section 1983 claim, defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … If the court answers yes to both questions, then the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Id., 436 F.3d at 169 .

AKINS v. CITY OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2020

Qualified immunity “shield{s] [government actors] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … District, our Coutt of Appeals emphasized that the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry must be analyzed “at the appropriate level of specificity.” 872 F.3d 165, 173 3d Cir. 2017).

Williams v. Price

25 F. Supp. 2d 605 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1997

Nichols, 989 F.2d 393 (10th Cir.1993), the court affirmed an order denying the sheriffs motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … The court stated: Assuming that the inmates have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right of access to the courts, no record evidence establishes that any of the named defendants were personally involved

BROWN v. NEWELL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2019

Further, the court ruled that the officer was not protected by qualified immunity, because the “state-created danger” doctrine had been clearly established at the time of the incident, and the corrections officer allegedly … was “clearly established at the time.” ...

Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Company

369 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1973

The record further shows that no training program was ever provided so they could qualify. … Clearly such a result is not correct under Title VII. Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. 431 F.2d 245, 249 (10th Cir. 1970). Necessity connotes an irresistible demand.

Royal Indemnity Company v. City of Erie

372 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1974

Mifflin Borough, 69 Pa.Super. 441 (1918), the citizens of the defendant borough were held to be qualified as jurors in a suit against the borough. To the same effect is Romig v. Allentown, 2 Leh. 277 (1905). … Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877 (1973) abolishing the doctrine of governmental immunity with respect to municipal corporations in Pennsylvania.

PENASCINO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2025

Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.* 2. … The Court holds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

AKINS v. CITY OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2020

Qualified immunity “shield[s] [government actors] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … District, our Court of Appeals emphasized that the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry must be analyzed “at the appropriate level of specificity.” 872 F.3d 165, 173 (d Cir. 2017).

Hair v. Fayette County

265 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2017

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under 'the ADA, a plaintiff must' show: (1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the … The Court finds no need in this instance to address the immunity issue.

Mack v. Yost

979 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2013

Defendants assert that there have been no constitutional violations and, alternatively, that the doctrines of sovereign and qualified immunity bar Mack’s claims. (Doc. No. 38 at 2-3). … Defendants further argue that the doctrines of qualified and sovereign immunity bar Mack’s claims and that Defendants Yost, Kuhn, and Stephens should be dismissed because there is no allegation that they personally violated

Lombard v. School District

463 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1978

Assn, of Elevator Constructors, 538 F.2d 1012 , 1015 (3d Cir. 1976), but may also be made by showing that according to some objective criteria, like length of experience, the plaintiff is clearly more qualified than others … Furthermore, we note that the evidence of retaliation which Lombard produced, when viewed in a light favorable to her, was barely sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

immunity. … immunity in the context of the July 8, 2020 meeting as it would have been unclear to the Township Officials at the time that denying the Plaintiffs physical access to the July 8, 2020 meeting violated a clearly established

GARRIS v. United States

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

And the Garrises do not dispute that the USPS qualifies as a statutory employer under the PWCA. See generally ECF No. 25. Thus, there is no dispute that under controlling Pennsylvania law, USPS is immune from Mr. … In light of that immunity, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and will dismiss it without prejudice.3 See Brownback, 592 U.S. at 218 (stating that to establish subject matter jurisdiction in an

SIMS v. PENN HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

In resolving a claim of qualified immunity, courts analyze “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of … The district court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. See id. at 720.

Benard v. Washington County

465 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2006

Clearly as to her, Count III is time-barred. … Clearly, the defendants' complained-of acts do not fall within any of these exceptions to immunity. 3 .

CASH v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY SHERIFF OFF.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2021

immunity. … As Judge Dodge found with regard to Officer Mercer, considering such facts, the question therefore “becomes whether it was clearly established on February 23, 2018, that the use of non- deadly force by a police officer to

Zimmerman v. Susie

534 F. Supp. 626 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1982

“[I]t is well established that, in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be … Because there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity as to claims based on the tort of misrepresentation, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

SOLANO v. SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2025

Discriminatory and retaliatory acts committed within the employment context are not among the categories of conduct which the Sovereign Immunity Act has expressly waived the immunity from liability. … Sovereign immunity does not apply to Dr. Solano’s three PHRA claims because he clearly states that “this claim is being brought against Defendant McCoy in her personal capacity.”

Pellegrino Food Products Co. v. City of Warren

136 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2000

STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not granted “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. … It denies immunity to the employees of local agencies, the individually named City Defendants in this case, but does not deny immunity to the City itself. See Cooper v.