INGRAM et al v. VANGUARD GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 32

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 28 , IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 46-58, 75, 134-53, AND 192-208 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 26 WILL BE GRANTED IN PA RT AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT XI OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS I, II, AND XI OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HAMMOND ONLY IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT XI OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT TRACY RICHARDS ONLY IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS, IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISM ISS THE DISPARTE IMPACT CLAIMS, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE A NOTICE BY 8/6/2015 SPECIFYING THE THEORY, OR THEORIES, OF DISCRIMINATION, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 7/17/15. 7/17/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONNA INGRAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-3674

v.
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of July 2015, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Partially the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 26), Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to
the Motion (Doc. No. 28), and Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of the Motion (Doc. No.
29), and for reasons stated in the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the allegations set forth in paragraphs 46-58, 75, 134-53,
and 192-208 of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 26) will be granted in part and denied
in part. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 142-45 and 147-48 of the Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 24) are dismissed as time barred because they involve events that
occurred more than 300 days before Plaintiff Jo DiGiovanni filed her Charge of
Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 4658, 75, 134-41, 146, 149-53, and 192-208 of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 24) will
not be dismissed.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count XI of the Amended Complaint against Defendant
Bob Arata only (Doc. No. 26) is granted. Bob Arata is no longer a defendant in this case.

3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, and XI of the Amended Complaint against
Defendant Christopher Hammond only (Doc. No. 26) is granted in part and denied in
part. Count XI of the Amended Complaint against Defendant Hammond is dismissed.
Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint against Defendant Hammond will not be
dismissed.
4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count XI of the Amended Complaint against Defendant
Tracy Richards only (Doc. No. 26) is granted.
5. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the hostile work environment claims, which are set forth
in Counts I, III, V, VI, and VIII of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 26), is denied.
6. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the disparate impact claims, which are set forth in Counts
I and III of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 26), is granted.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a notice by August 6, 2015
specifying the theory, or theories, of discrimination on which Plaintiff Jo DiGiovanni bases her
claims in Counts IX and X of the Amended Complaint.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J.
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

2