CAVALIERE v. ADVERTISING SPECIALTY INSTITUTE INC.

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT ASI'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART; COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF CAVALIERE'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT IT ASSERTS CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ADA; CAVAL IERE'S DAMAGES CLAIMS FOR BACK PAY AND FRONT PAY IN HER COMPLAINT ARE DISMISSED; COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF CAVALIERE'S COMPLAINT IS WITHDRAWN TO THE EXTENT IT ASSERTS A CLAIM OF INTERFERENCE UNDER THE FMLA; IN ACCORDANCE WITH LRCP 72.1 AND 28 US C SECTION 636 (B)(3), THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO JUDGE JACOB P. HART TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THIS CONTROVERSY; THE PARTIES SHALL COOPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDGE HART'S INSTRUCTIONS AND SHALL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO MEET WITH HIM AT HIS EARLIEST CONVENIENCE; AND FURTHER SCHEDULING SHALL ABIDE THE RESULTS OF JUDGE HART'S EFFORTS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE STEWART DALZELL ON 2/16/12. 2/17/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUDITH CAVALIERE
v.
ADVERTISING SPECIALTY
INSTITUTE INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-1180

ORDER
And now, this 16th day of February, 2012, upon
consideration of plaintiff Judith Cavaliere’s complaint (docket
entry # 11), defendant Advertising Specialty Institute Inc.’s
(“ASI’s”) motion for partial summary judgment (docket entry #
21), Cavaliere’s response in opposition thereto (docket entry #
23), and ASI’s reply in support of its motion (docket entry #
27), and upon the analysis set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant ASI’s motion for partial summary

judgment (docket entry # 21) is GRANTED IN PART;
2.

Count II of plaintiff Cavaliere’s complaint

(docket entry # 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent it
asserts claims of discrimination under the ADA;
3.

Cavaliere’s damages claims for back pay and front

pay in her complaint (docket entry # 1) are DISMISSED;

4.

Count I of plaintiff Cavaliere’s complaint (docket

entry # 1) is WITHDRAWN to the extent it asserts a claim of
interference under the FMLA;
5.

In accordance with Loc. R. Civ. P. 72.1 and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), this case is REFERRED to Judge Jacob P. Hart
to attempt to resolve this controversy;
6.

The parties shall COOPERATE in accordance with

Judge Hart’s instructions and shall make every effort to meet
with him at his earliest convenience; and
7.

Further scheduling shall ABIDE the results of

Judge Hart’s efforts.

BY THE COURT:

__\s\Stewart Dalzell

2