Case law

Weyandt v. Mason's Stores, Inc.

279 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 1968

Williams was indeed a private detective, but he also held a special police officer’s card issued by the City of Miami, Florida, and had taken an oath and qualified as a special police officer. … Plaintiff also fails to establish how she was deprived of the equal protection of the laws. She does not claim to be the member of a discriminated class.

Dorley v. South Fayette Township School District

129 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2015

Dist., 548 Fed.Appx. 50 , 54 & n. 2 (3d Cir.2013) (holding qualified immunity protected coach from liability because the law was not clearly established without commenting on the propriety (or impropriety) of the substantive … In Spady , our Court of Appeals declined to address whether a federal right had been violated, and instead held that the gym teacher was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a student

Rees v. Office of Children and Youth

744 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity relative to Count I of the complaint.

Englert v. City of McKeesport

637 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1986

To qualify as “state action”, anticompetitive activities by a municipality must have been undertaken pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy. Town of Hallie v. … In attempting to establish that McKeesport’s actions were taken pursuant to a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy,” McKeesport relies primarily on statutory provisions of the Pennsylvania Third Class

Ickes v. Grassmeyer

30 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2014

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the individual Defendants do not move for dismissal of any federal claims based on qualified immunity. 17 (ECF Nos. 7-10). Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. … The assault and battery claims brought against the Commonwealth are clearly barred.

Burkley v. Municipal Authority

991 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2014

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As a final matter, the Court notes that the individual Defendants have not asserted qualified immunity as a defense at this stage. … Therefore, we conclude that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id. at 293 .

Morgan v. Sharon Pennsylvania Board of Education

472 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 1979

Defendants further contend that even in the absence of absolute immunity, count two is barred by a qualified immunity that they are entitled to invoke. … At this stage of the litigation, however, it is premature to determine whether or not the requisite good faith needed for qualified immunity has been established.

Service Employees International Union v. County of Butler

306 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1969

Plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act must allege that defendants acted under color of law. … Davis, 396 F. *1084 2d 730 [8th Cir., 1968], Whether or not the qualified immunity of acts done in good faith can be asserted by these defendants as a defense is a factual matter that can only be resolved by a trial.

Smith v. Private Industry Council of Westmoreland & Fayette Counties, Inc.

622 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 1985

(“[T]he Thirteenth Amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.”) … The Complaint clearly distinguishes between federal rights asserted under § 1985(3) and those rights accorded under Title VII.

Minor v. Cumberland Township

258 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity The Officer Defendants assert qualified immunity as & defense as to all of Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. (Doc. 62) at 24. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Stana v. School District

598 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1984

Two elements must be established to constitute a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … We believe that Plaintiff clearly has redress in the state courts of Pennsylvania. E.g. McKelvey v. Colonial School Dist., 22 Pa.Commwlth. 207, 348 A.2d 445 (1975).

Mohney v. Pennsylvania

809 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2011

the test established in Boeme. … The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has established that "a state program or activity that accepts federal funds waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity" and is therefore susceptible to suit under the RA.

Vantassel v. Brooks

355 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2005

Defendants correctly note that the qualified immunity analysis turns on the “objective reasonableness” of the Defendant’s action “assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time action was taken … Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d *803 Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, rejecting a qualified immunity defense in the context of a political patronage context, stated that “as of 1982 the law was ‘clearly established’ that a public employee

Gozdanovic v. Civil Serv. Com'n for City of Pittsburgh, Pa.

361 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1973

Guhel “reported” his findings to the Commission are insufficient to establish that plaintiff himself ever demanded a hearing. Under the quoted statute only the plaintiff could request a public hearing. … Clearly, the Pennsylvania Civil Service Act requires that civil service tests objectively measure an applicant’s fitness for the particular job he is applying for, and if the psychological test administered by the Commission

FRITZ v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she is qualified for her position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4 … Generally, to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) she is 40 years of age or older; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified

Southersby Development Corp. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills

852 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2012

Qualified Immunity McVicker alternatively argues that summary judgment should be granted in his favor because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Sowers v. Bradford Area School District

694 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1988

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants Smith, Miller and Shuey also seek dismissal on the basis that their actions were within the scope of those actions protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 15 Qualified … The individual defendants’ eligibility for dismissal of this action under the qualified immunity doctrine turns on whether a reasonable person would have known that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Ferrone v. Onorato

439 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2006

Defendants fail to establish that Plaintiffs’ claim is not viable under the Constitution. … The defense of official immunity is an affirmative defense which must be established by the defendants.

Hayduk v. City of Johnstown

580 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2008

Silka was a public official at the time he terminated Plaintiffs employment, and as such was “entitled to qualified immunity from damage liability” if his firing of Plaintiff did not “violate clearly established statutory … Express, Inc., 890 F.Supp. 416, 421 (E.D.Pa.1995), the issue of qualified immunity is decided based on whether the law was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions. Williams v.

Mines v. Kahle

557 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1983

Many courts have held that a qualified good-faith immunity applies to prosecutors acting in an investigative or administrative capacity. See, e.g., Jacobson v. … The Court stated: Because immunity is conferred on an individual solely by virtue of the office he holds, reason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the