ROBERTS v. FERMAN et al

Filing 128

ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN PART & GRANTED IN PART AS TO COUNT I, II, III, IV, & V, ETC. HAVING GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFTS JUSTICE & BERNSTIEL ON ALL COUNTS AGAINST THEM, THESE DEFTS ARE HEREBY DISM ISSED IN THIS MATTER. PLFF'S CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1986 IS DISMISSED. PLFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS III & IV IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 7/19/11. 7/20/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REGINALD A. ROBERTS
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
RISA VETRI FERMAN, et al.
Defendants.

NO. 09-4895

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and Statement of Material Undisputed Facts (Docs. 103, 104), Plaintiff's
Response and Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. 109), and Defendant's Reply (Docs. 111,
112), as well as Plaintiff's supplementary documents (Docs. 113, 115, 116); Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment (Docs. 32,33, 77, 78), Defendants' responses thereto (Docs. 36,
83,85), and Plaintiff's replies (Docs. 38, 84),1 and following oral argument that was held before

1 By Order filed September 10,2010 (Doc. 50), the Court denied Plaintiff's Second
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff renewed his Second
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in accordance with the Court's instructions, given during
a September 9, 2010 hearing on the record. During the hearing, the Court instructed Plaintiff that
if he wished to renew Document 32, he must only provide notice via a one-sentence
memorandum, (Hr'g Tr. 22-23, Sept. 9,2010), which would, by implication, incorporate his
initial motion. Accordingly, the Court considers Plaintiff's original Motion (Doc. 32), together
with his Renewal Notice and any exhibits attached thereto (Docs. 77, 78), as a new Motion for
Summary Judgment subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
1

the Court on April 28, 2011,2 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED

IN PART as to Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint. Specifically, Defendants' Motion is denied as
to Plaintiffs claim for race discrimination and as it pertains to Plaintiff s claim of retaliatory
termination. Defendants' Motion is granted as it pertains to any additional claims of unlawful
retaliation by Plaintiff.
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED

IN PART as to Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants' Motion is denied as to Defendant
Ferman on the issue ofPlaintifrs termination; Defendants Vance and Gallen on the issues of
Plaintifrs termination and forced transfer, and Defendant Forzato on the issues of Plaintiffs
continuing to work in a dangerous environment and forced transfer. Defendants' Motion is
granted as to Defendants Bemstiel and Justice and as to Defendants Ferman, Vance, Gallen, and
Forzato on all other issues brought under Count II.
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED

IN PART as to Count III ofPlaintifrs Complaint. Defendants' Motion is denied as to Plaintiffs
claim against Montgomery County for Due Process violations related to Plaintiff s claim for
Heart and Lung benefits. Defendants' Motion is granted as it relates to all other claims of
municipal liability.
4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED

2 The record for summary judgment motions was deemed closed by the Court as of its
April 29, 2011 Order (Doc. 119). Therefore, Plaintiffs Supplemental Notice to the Court (Doc.
125), which was filed on May 11,2011, was not considered by the Court for purposes of the
pending motions for summary judgment.

2

IN PART as to Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants' Motion is denied as it pertains to

Plaintiffs claim for violation of his right to Equal Protection by Defendants Ferman, Vance, and
Gallen only on the issue of Plaintiff's termination. Defendants' Motion is granted as it pertains
to Plaintiffs claim for violation of his right to Equal Protection by Defendants Forzato, Bemstiel,
and Justice. Defendants' Motion is also granted as to Plaintiffs claim for violations of his right
to Due Process by the named defendants.
5. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED
IN PART as to Count V of Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants' Motion is denied as to Count V

of Plaintiffs Complaint for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act, consistent with the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs claims of the same under
Title VII. Defendants' Motion is also denied under 43 Pa. Const. Stat. § 955(e) as to Defendants
Ferman, Vance, Gallen, and Forzato. Defendants' Motion is granted under 43 Pa. Const. Stat. §
955(e) as to Defendants Justice and Bemstiel.
6. Having granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Justice and Bemstiel on all
counts against them, these defendants are hereby DISMISSED in this matter.
7. Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 is DISMISSED.
8. Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count III and IV is
DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3