Case law

Wilson v. Lemington Home for the Aged

159 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2001

notice is needed (i.e. when the policy changes during a subsequent period of FMLA leave or each time leave is requested and the employer requires a medical certification, unless the initial notice and the employer handbook clearly … Depression may qualify as impairments for purposes of the ADA. See, e.g., Pritchard v. Southern Co.

SHEROD v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

qualified countermeasures . . . or qualified pandemic or epidemic products . . . that are applicable to the public health emergency or potential public health emergency . . .”. 42 U.S.C.A § 247d(b)(2)(C). … However, the Act also provides an exception to the immunity provision for covered persons which reads as follows: Subject to subsection (f), the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability

Savko v. Port Authority

800 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1992

When a plaintiff brings a disparate impact case individually rather than on behalf of a class, the plaintiff must also establish that she was a “qualified” applicant and must establish that her individual circumstances entitle … As discussed earlier, the plaintiff has established that she was “qualified” for the job that went to Lutheran. 24.

Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

539 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 1982

The facts establish that Josephine Hickey and Nancy J. Tacsik were both more qualified than Flockhart for the assistant branch managerships to which they were appointed in March, 1976. … No testimony was introduced to establish this assumption as a fact. III.

Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance

298 F.R.D. 285 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2014

Plaintiffs contend that they qualified for discounted title insurance rates but were charged the basic rate instead. (ECF No. 188 ¶¶ 27, 41.) … The settlement agent is required to itemize clearly “all charges imposed upon a borrower” on the HUD-1. 12 U.S.C. § 2603 (a).

TALLEY v. PILLAI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2019

The Commonwealth Defendants argue that, not only are they entitled to Eleventh Immunity on this claim, but Talley’s claim has no merit. … There is no waiver of sovereign immunity for intentional torts. In this case, Lt.

Gilson v. Pennsylvania State Police

175 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2016

Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs PHSA/COBRA claim, but this argument overlooks the fact that the only named Defendant in Count 4 is PSP. … Because the defense of qualified immunity is available only to defendants who are sued in their individual capacities for money damages, see See Hafer v.

MAY v. ERIE COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2025

(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 from such relief.” … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, “an employee must show that [he]: (1) is disabled; (2) is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable

THE ESTATE OF BRIAN EDWARD FISHER v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 8, 2025

As the Third Circuit has cautioned, “it is generally unwise to venture into a qualified immunity analysis at the pleading stage as it is necessary to develop the factual record in the vast majority of cases.” … App’x 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009)) (“[U]nless a complaint discloses that a police officer did not violate clearly established law when firing at a suspect, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is premature.”).

Bailey v. Babcock

241 F. 501 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 1915

Except as to ,the qualifying shares, the stock .was to be issued in the name of H. M. … by the statute without depriving directors of an immunity conferred upon them.

United States v. Clark

294 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 1968

In our opinion, the corpus delicti was established by the foregoing evidence. … The visual observations made by the police clearly provided a reasonable basis for suspicion.

Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady

545 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2008

Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435, 443 (3d Cir.1971), the court of appeals recognized that to establish a violation of public policy in Pennsylvania it must be shown that the cause of action or claim for relief … “tends clearly to injure the public health, the public morals, the public confidence in the purity of the administration of the law, or to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty

United States v. Horsley

621 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1985

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); that there have been no grants of immunity, plea bargains, promises or preferential treatment of witnesses. … Here Benny Sledge did swear to the criminal complaint, which clearly sets forth instances of deliveries by Horsley of controlled substances to the undercover officer Sledge.

HARRIS v. CASHMAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2021

must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … To establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution.

MATRAJT v. THE UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

established that he has family and employment in the Western District of Pennsylvania. … Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings is well-established.”).

Harding v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

809 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2011

Established or Maintained by Employer The next question for the Court is whether Secón established or maintained the plan, fund or program. See Spillane, 648 F.Supp.2d at 698 . … Here, the evidence of record clearly shows that Plaintiff received a discount for being a part of a risk group of Secón employees.

Blakely v. USAirways, Inc.

23 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1998

Defendant points out that establishing a prima facie case under the ADA requires each plaintiff to prove that he or she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” which encompasses a determination of (1) whether he or … “In order to make out a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must be able to establish that he or she (1) has a ‘disability’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because

United States v. Anzalone

100 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1951

The Election Code requires at each election “each elector who desires to vote shall first sign a voter’s certificate” 9 which certificate shall certify “that I am qualified to vote” 10 and hand same to the election officer … An alleged copy of an Italian birth certificate offered by the prosecution was rejected because it clearly was not a copy of a birth certificate at all. At best it was an attempt to introduce hearsay evidence.

Jordan v. Federal Express Corp.

914 F. Supp. 1180 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1996

The Court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests with the movant. … Jordan with an Alternative Basis for Relief’), his claims clearly are not based on the terms of his retirement plans which, just as clearly, preclude the revocation of election or designation of another joint annuitants he

Wurst v. Nestle Foods Corp.

791 F. Supp. 123 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 1991

In summary, we find no support for plaintiff’s argument that his discharge violated clearly mandated public policy. … The Pennsylvania legislature clearly has the legal authority to enact similar legislature. We deem it significant that it has chosen not to do so.