YARNALL v. THE PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS UNION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS 35 , DEFENDANTS SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, ARLENE ACKERMAN, SHIRL E. GILBERT, DIANE CAMPBELL HATHAWA Y, AND SHIRL A. ISHMAEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS [36,38], DEFENDANT CHARLES RAY III'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS 65 ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTI FFS' TITLE VII GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIMS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' TITLE VII RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' PHRA CLAIMS IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' ADEA CLAIMS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' STATE TORT CLAIMS OF DEFAMATION, LIBEL AND SLANDER, INVASION OF PRIVACY, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUA L RELATIONS, INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECTION 1983 CLAIMS IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANTS PHILADELPH IA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION TEACHERS UNION. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECTION 1983 CLAIMS IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANTS ACKERMAN AND HATHAWAY. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECTION 1983 CLAIMS IS DENIED AS TO DEFENDANT RAY. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECTION 1983 RETALIATION CLAIMS IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANTS ISHMAEL AND GILBERT. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 4/4/13. 4/4/13 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc]

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COLLEEN YARNALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3130 ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2013, having considered Defendant Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Union’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #35), Defendants School District of Philadelphia, Arlene Ackerman, Shirl E. Gilbert, Diane Campbell Hathaway, and Shirl. A Ishmael’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #36, 38), Defendant Charles Ray III’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #65), Plaintiffs’ Responses in Opposition thereto (Doc. #52, 53, 66), and for the reasons detailed in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Title VII gender discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims is GRANTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Title VII race discrimination claims is DENIED. 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ PHRA claims is DENIED. 4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ ADEA claims is GRANTED. 5. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ state tort claims of defamation, libel and slander, invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contractual relations, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, and civil conspiracy is GRANTED. 6. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the derivative Loss of Consortium claims is GRANTED. 7. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims is GRANTED as to Defendants Philadelphia School District and Philadelphia Federation Teachers Union. 8. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims is GRANTED as to Defendants Ackerman and Hathaway. 9. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims is DENIED as to Defendant Ray. 10. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 retaliation claims is GRANTED as to Defendants Ishmael and Gilbert. /s/ L. Felipe Restrepo_____ Hon. L. Felipe Restrepo U.S. Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?