De Piero v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 60

Memorandum and Order Defendants Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. C.S. § 951 et s eq.; and,2. Plaintiff is HEREBY ON NOTICE that this Court is considering granting summary judgment sua sponte in Defendants favor on the Title VII and PHRA retaliation claims pleaded in the Amended Complaint. As the adverse party, Plaintiff may prese nt relevant evidence and arguments in opposition in the form of a ten-page brief on or before March 20, 2025, and Defendants may file a reply brief of the same length on or before March 27, 2025. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 3/6/25. 3/6/25 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ZACK K. DE PIERO,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
et al.,
Defendants.

NO. 23-2281

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2025, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) and all responses and replies thereto (ECF Nos. 56-58), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981;
and, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. C.S. § 951 et seq.; and,

2.

Plaintiff is HEREBY ON NOTICE that this Court is considering granting
summary judgment sua sponte in Defendants’ favor on the Title VII and PHRA
retaliation claims pleaded in the Amended Complaint. As the adverse party,
Plaintiff may present relevant evidence and arguments in opposition in the form
of a ten-page brief on or before March 20, 2025, and Defendants may file a
reply brief of the same length on or before March 27, 2025. 1
BY THE COURT:
S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

“[A]uthority has developed to allow a court to grant summary judgment” sua sponte even in the absence of any
motion filed by a party. Chambers Dev. Co. v. Passaic Cty. Utils. Auth., 62 F.3d 582, 584 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995); see
also DL Res., Inc. v. FirstEnergy Sols. Corp., 506 F.3d 209, 223 (3d Cir. 2007) (“District courts may grant summary
judgment sua sponte in appropriate circumstances.”). In such cases, courts are required to provide notice to the
party against whom summary judgment would be granted that a sua sponte decision is under consideration and
provide that party “with an opportunity to present relevant evidence in opposition.” Chambers Dev. Co., 62 F.3d at
584 n.5.
1