BOOKER et al v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Filing 9

ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; AND DEFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLFFS' COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 7/19/12. ) 7/20/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________________
RUDOLF BOOKER and MAURICE
ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK,
Defendant.
_____________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-1528

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Document No. 2, filed May 29, 2012), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Document No. 6, filed
July 2, 2012), Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support
of its Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 7, filed July 16, 2012), and defendant’s Reply
Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint
(Document No. 7-1, filed July 16, 2012), for the reasons stated in the Memorandum dated July 19,
2012, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support

of its Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and
2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is granted with respect

to:
i.

Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981;

ii.

Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims under Title VII accruing
before October 23, 2009;

iii.

Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
accruing before March 27, 2008;

iv.
v.

Plaintiffs’ wrongful supervision claim; and

vi.
b.

Plaintiffs’ claims under the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act;

Plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claim.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is denied in all other
respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s ruling is without prejudice to defendant’s
right to argue, based on evidence adduced later in the proceedings, that (1) the four-year federal
catch-all statute of limitations under is inapplicable to some or all of plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims and
(2) plaintiffs’ discrimination claims arising from the July 2009 incident are untimely. The Court’s
ruling is also without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to file an Amended Complaint consistent with this
Memorandum if warranted by the facts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a preliminary pretrial conference will be scheduled in
due course.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

-2-