Case law

Seeney v. Pennsylvania

31 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA and RA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA [and RA]; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Employee Otherwise Qualified to Perform the Essential Functions of the Job ' Whether a plaintiff can establish element two of a prima facie case-she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job-is

Peck v. Delaware County Board of Prison Inspectors

572 Pa. 249 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2002

In those situations, the general contractor who meets the five-part McDonald test qualifies as the statutory employer of the subcontractor’s employee, and is immune from suit by that employee. … Accordingly, we endorse the principle that, for purposes of Section 203 statutory employer immunity, statutory employer status should be found only where all five elements of the McDonald test are clearly met. 2 Turning to

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority

937 A.2d 1173 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2007

Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), the trial court determined that a per se violation of the Act does not create a dangerous condition of Reading’s facilities, so as to qualify under the exception … Clearly, the dangerous condition, as alleged, originated with the conduct of Reading’s employees.

Carlson v. Beemer

225 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … B, Clearly Established Law The second qualified immunity prong tasks the court to determine whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Spady, 800 F.3d at 637 .

Travers v. Cameron County School District

117 Pa. Commw. 606 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 1988

This was clearly error. Equitable estoppel “does not create a cause of action at law and, unless a plaintiff can first show a cause of action, estoppel will not supply one for him in an action at law.” … These factual allegations and inferences are sufficient, at this point in the litigation where they must be accepted as true, to establish a promise, expected to be relied on, which was relied on by Appellant to his detriment

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

33 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2014

State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court considers whether the official’s acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and (if so) whether that right was clearly established at the

Frantz v. Gress

520 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2007

Qualified Immunity In them response to Plaintiffs Motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, any claim against them would be barred. … The present record does not support a qualified immunity finding at the summary judgment stage because while the rights at issue in this case are both constitutional and clearly established, there remains a dispute whether

Rinderer v. Delaware County Children & Youth Services

703 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1987

established law. … Again, the record is too bare for me to determine whether Ansel is immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity with respect to Richard’s privacy claim. 1 .

Sewell v. Dever

581 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 1984

The scope of this qualified immunity was examined further in Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … The immunity defense was found to be unavailing to defendants in § 1983 actions under the first part of this test “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

566 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1983

Police officials acting under the color of state law are government officials who perform discretionary functions and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Scheuer v. … The fact that the Assistant District Attorney moved to withdraw the charges at the final hearing does not of itself establish malice. 6 “If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably

Wilkinson v. Ellis

484 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1980

for the former, but asks us to hold that the latter is subject only to qualified immunity. … Such conduct would be subject to qualified immunity at most. 18 . See Briggs v.

Verney v. Dodaro

872 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1995

Qualified Immunity The Defendant employees contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions taken with regard to the Plaintiff. … It held that the claim failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

BRYANT v. POTTSGROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2025

Lucas’ argument flips the qualified immunity burden. Qualified immunity is not, as Lucas characterizes it, a “shield” that Bryant must “remove” by pleading a violation of clearly law established law. … Nor is “qualified immunity” a “a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate . . . clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights.” Jennings v.

Johnson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

805 A.2d 644 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2002

DOT’s recall was effected pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c), which authorizes DOT to recall operating privileges when a licensee’s incompetency has been established. … to sovereign immunity).

Luck v. Mount Airy 1, LLC

901 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Commonwealth Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established .... ” Brown v.

Sphere Drake Insurance v. Philadelphia Gas Works

566 Pa. 541 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2001

The deferred compensation plan established for PFMC employees qualifies as an eligible deferred compensation plan applicable to employees of a “State, political subdivision of a State, and any agency or instrumentality of … A panel of the Commonwealth Court held that the Parking Authority was a local agency that enjoyed immunity under the Act — even though it was incorporated separately from its affiliated municipality and, thus, hardly qualified

Gross v. Cairo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2022

Cairo has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity requires a two-prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Ickes v. Borough of Bedford

807 F. Supp. 2d 306 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 2011

In order for a federal right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing … A plaintiff seeking redress for a violation of his or her constitutional or statutory rights may overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity “only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the con

Lines v. Wargo

271 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … The analytical framework that district courts should employ in determining whether qualified immunity applies is clearly established: The Court explained that a qualified immunity analysis must begin with this threshold question

Gay v. Merritt

574 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 1983

immunity under § 1983. … Defendant would then have to show that his conduct did not, under the circumstances presented, violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.