Case law

Mascioli v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.

610 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2009

Termination from employment qualifies as an “adverse employment action.” See Metzler v. … In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) he [or she] is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he [or she] is otherwise qualified to

Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

805 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2011

Here, Defendants have clearly and repeatedly stated that Ms. Lichtenstein was terminated as a result of her absences, tardiness, and difficulty accommodating her scheduling requests. … Lichtenstein qualified as an eligible employee of UPMC (despite the transfer from WPIC to UPMC Braddock in September 2007) and that UPMC is a "covered employer.” .

First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. United States

161 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1958

Plaintiff, of course, is in agreement with the general well-established principle that the United States, like any other sovereign, may not be sued without its consent and when it consents by act of Congress, the action may … However, plaintiff asserts that authority for the suit has been clearly expressed and it is found in the following statutes: (1) Congress has given the District Court general jurisdiction over the subject matter of actions

ROMAN v. M & T BANK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

The Court notes that the first two exceptions clearly do not apply to this case since Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court,7 and since Congress has not abrogated Eleventh … immunity as an affirmative defense; the defense must clearly appear on the face of the complaint.”

DAVIS v. SAMUELS

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

With respect to Counts L, IL, IV, and V, O’Neill and Mellendick argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Davis and Beckford have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. … The Parties’ Arguments With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim under RFRA, O'Neill and Mellendick again argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 87 at 18-22.)

OWUSU ANSAH v. JORDAN

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

In Neitzke, the Supreme Court identified two types of legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably meritless legal theory, and (2) those with factual contentions which are clearly baseless. … To establish a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must show “1) a person acting under color of law committed the conduct at issue and 2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the U.S.

WASHINGTON v. GILMORE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2022

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The court, therefore, overrules Washington’s objections based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Home for Crippled Children v. Prudential Insurance

590 F. Supp. 1490 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1984

Clearly, Connecticut General made no misrepresentations during the conversation in question. … This provision clearly does not apply here.

Lichtenstein v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc.

727 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1989

The Uniform Commercial Code was established to provide a uniform body of rules governing commercial transactions. … The public policy interest in establishing a clear system of rights and liabilities between parties to a commercial transaction is the same in both cases.

Strawhecker v. Laurel School District

100 F.R.D. 7 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 1983

The test is clearly satisfied in this case because plaintiff asserts relief against all defendants as the result of the same series of transactions or occurrences. … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

HEFFLEY v. STEELE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2019

And these ADA claims involve a well-establish, generally straightforward legal framework. … immunity would apply to an ADA claim brought against an individual whose functions qualify her or him for immunity). 14 and punitive damages.

United States v. Mesarosh

13 F.R.D. 180 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 1952

Clearly, this is not the surveillance condemned in Sinclair v. United States, supra. … We do not think that the evidence established that this represented a system of exclusion.

United States v. Buttram

432 F. Supp. 1269 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 1977

Our decisions have never established such a congruence.” … This holding was based on the concepts of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy which clearly apply to a defendant facing two separate trials but clearly have no rele *1274 vanee to one defendant facing one trial on two

OWUSU ANSAH v. MCCALL/LAWRENCE

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

In Neitzke, the Supreme Court identified two types of legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably meritless legal theory, and (2) those with factual contentions which are clearly baseless. … To establish a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must show “1) a person acting under color of law committed the conduct at issue and 2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity protected by the U.S

In re Benson

102 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1952

It must, therefore, be determined if the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were so clearly erroneous and such a plain mistake as results in the defeat of justice. The facts are not in dispute. … Similarly, the transaction might also qualify as a chattel mortgage if the two documents are construed to' be a chattel mortgage plus a note.

Glaser v. Marietta

351 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 1972

The plaintiff produced child psychologists who testified that in their opinion corporal punishmént was not warranted in an educational setting and, in opposition, the defense produced a highly qualified expert in the field … This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition * * *.

Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

243 F.R.D. 147 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2007

The Americans with Disabilities Act Under the general rule established by Title I of the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with a disability because of that disability. … [did] not qualify as incidental damages.”

Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp.

874 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1995

First, they argue that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable finding that Brewer was qualified for the position of sales representative … In a “pretext” age discrimination action under ADEA, 4 the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie *681 case by demonstrating that he or she: (1) is a member of the protected group; (2) was qualified

PUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2026

See Miller, 174 F.3d at 374 (stating that “[t]he proper approach” when a qualified immunity defense is raised “is to ascertain whether a constitutional violation has been alleged before determining if qualified … immunity is available”)

Alex v. Allen

409 F. Supp. 379 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 1976

On the contrary, we think that it spells out quite clearly and in sufficient detail the conduct which is forbidden. … (d) Defendant/members of the hearing panel on numerous occasions asked questions of impeached witnesses clearly designed to re-establish grounds for expulsion.”