Case law

National Ass'n for Neighborhood Schools of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Board of Public Education

497 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 1980

Title IV clearly does not restrict state school authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers to assign students within their school systems.” … No State shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Pears v. Spang

718 F. Supp. 441 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1989

Plaintiff clearly establishes a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). … Just as clearly, defendant articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for plaintiffs dismissal—a reduction in force and retention of allegedly better qualified or better performing employees.

WILLIAMS v. LEE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2020

Defendants respond that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars this claim. In general, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acting within the scope of their duties enjoy sovereign immunity. Walton v. … Thus, state prison officials are immune from suit for those actions within the scope of their duties, except in instances in which the immunity has been specifically waived.

Venter v. Potter

694 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2010

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff need only show that: (1) he or she was a member of a statutorily-protected class; (2) he or she was qualified for the position; (3) he or she was aggrieved … The USPS’ reason for terminating Venter’s employment is “clearly set forth” in the documentary record.

SHEPARD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2025

Apr. 2, 2025) (allegations must be reasonably attributed to each defendant to establish personal involvement). … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.

TICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2025

Analysis As an initial matter, the issue of immunity for Defendants was argued by all Parties. … To state a claim for civil conspiracy, 8 Plaintiff includes a discussion in his Response (ECF No. 30, p. 3) arguing that Corrections Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity.

Geesey v. Citimortgage, Inc.

135 F. Supp. 3d 332 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2015

One condition to permanent modification is the lender’s determination that the, borrower qualifies for permanently lowered payments. See Cave v. … This language clearly establishes that the private right of action under the UTPCPL is limited to anyone who. purchases or leases goods or services for primarily personal, family or household purposes.

Hartol Petroleum Corp. v. Cantelou Oil Co.

107 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1952

its meaning from the testimony of persons in the-petroleum industry qualified to express an-opinion in this regard. … The record shows clearly enough what took place. After the jury retired the Court asked counsel whether they wished to be present when the verdict was received, page 47.

Adams v. Koppers Co., Inc.

684 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 1988

The Plan argues that § 1140 applies to any “person” who commits the proscribed acts, and that § 1002(9) does not list plans among the numerous entities that qualify as “persons.” … In order to recover from a plan administrator under § 1140, the plaintiff must first establish his prima facie case.

WILLIAMS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court and while Congress can abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, it did not elect to do so in 42 U.S.C. §1983. Downey v. … To maintain a claim under either statute, a plaintiff must establish “that he is a qualified individual with a disability, who was precluded from participating in a program, service, or activity, or otherwise was subject

State Automobile Insurance v. Young Men's Republican Club of Allegheny County, Inc.

663 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1987

Read as a whole, the insurance contract clearly does not cover the liability at issue. … Using the canon of interpretation that specific language qualifies more general language in the same document, see Capitol Bus Co. v.

SIKINA v. DEJOY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2025

McCabe’s July 18, 2022 note clearly indicated that Plaintiff could not work. (ECF No. 37-13). … Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established any genuine issue of material fact that she was a qualified individual under the Rehabilitation Act. ii.

VEVERKA v. HUMAN SERVICES CENTER

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2023

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … A plaintiff can establish a prima facie gender discrimination case by showing: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) this

Taylor v. Altoona Area School District

737 F. Supp. 2d 474 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2010

The core facts quite clearly differ between the IDEA claim and Rehab Act/ADA claims. … to establish discrimination.

Joseph v. Algemene Bank Nederland, NV

592 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1984

Defendants first argue that plaintiffs have not established a “pattern of racketeering activity” as required by these sections. … Plaintiffs are free to amend the Complaint to include a count with respect to § 1962(c), but should they choose to do so, should clearly identify the alleged enterprise.

Kriss v. Fayette County

827 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2011

immunity. … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

Bey v. Schneider Sheet Metal, Inc.

596 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1984

Defendant points out that although plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they were laid off on July 20, 1983, it is clearly established by the affidavit of Ed McCafferty, the defendant’s field supervisor, that they were … The affidavits of plaintiffs Bey and Christian support defendant’s assertion as to die date of lay-off which was not clearly set forth in either the complaint or the EEOC filing.

United States Ex Rel. Silverman v. Pennsylvania

527 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1981

We find that plaintiff has failed to establish this proposition by a preponderance of the evidence. … Again it is not unreasonable, and clearly not unconstitutional, for prison officials to require that the medical records of all inmates remain in a central location and immune from unauthorized inspections.

WOOLSLAYER v. DRISCOLL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

Driscoll then concludes that the email was sent in Woolslayer’s capacity as an employee and therefore fails to qualify as a protected activity. Driscoll’s conclusion is untenable for a several reasons, however. … The doctrine of Ex parte Young provides a narrow but well-established exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity in lawsuits seeking prospective injunctive relief.

Sani-Dairy v. Yeutter

782 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1991

(“the Act”), which empowers the Secretary to promulgate milk market orders to curb destabilizing competition by establishing a uniform price for all producers in an area. … Moreover, the Act clearly contemplates that producers would participate in the regulatory process.