CHAN v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER et al

Filing 26

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATIO N OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION, AND CONSPIRACY; AND DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM IN COUNT II AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LANCASTER FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND THE CLAIM IN COUNT IV AGAINST ALL DE FENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT (PHRA), TO THE EXTENT THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN COUNT I, TO THE EXTENT IT IS BASED ON DEPRIVATIO N OF A PROPERTY INTEREST IN PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYMENT, IS DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN COUNT I, TO THE EXTENT IT IS BASED ON DEPRIVATION OF A LIBERTY INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF S REPUTATION, IS DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RE-PLEAD THIS CLAIM IN IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMS FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND CONSPIRACY IN COUNT I ARE DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJ UDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO REPLEAD THESE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIM IN COUNT II AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LANCASTER FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND THE CLAIM IN COUNT IV AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT S FOR VIOLATION OF THE PHRA, TO THE EXTENT THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO REPLEAD THESE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED WRONGFUL TERMINATION ARE WITHDRAWN AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAIN TIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 2011 TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDER AND ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN THE EVENT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY OCTOBER 17, 2011, DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 31, 2011 TO ANSWER THE REMAINING CLAIMS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/26/11. 9/27/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY CHAN,
Plaintiff
vs.
COUNTY OF LANCASTER;
DENNIS STUCKEY;
SCOTT MARTIN;
CRAIG LEHMAN;
CHARLES E. DOUTS, JR.; and
ANDREA McCUE,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 10-cv-03424

O R D E R
NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2011, upon
consideration of the following documents:
(1)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, which motion was filed
February 24, 2011 (Document 15); together
with
Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint, which
brief was filed February 24, 2011
(Document 16);

(2)

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part the
Amended Complaint, which response was filed
March 21, 2011 (Document 17); together with
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part
Amended Complaint, which memorandum was
filed March 21, 2011 (Document 17-2);
and

(3)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint, which reply
brief was filed April 8, 2011 (Document 21),

it appearing that plaintiff withdrew her claims in Count I for
deprivation of substantive due process and politically-motivated

wrongful termination1; upon review of plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint filed February 7, 2011 (Document 14); and for the
reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in
part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is granted to the
extent it seeks dismissal of the claims in Count I against all
defendants for violation of procedural due process, First
Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy; and dismissal of the claim
in Count II against defendant County of Lancaster for violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the claim in
Count IV against all defendants for violation of the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), to the extent these claims are
based on a hostile work environment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the procedural due process
claim in Count I, to the extent it is based on deprivation of a
property interest in plaintiff’s employment, is dismissed against
all defendants with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the procedural due process
claim in Count I, to the extent it is based on deprivation of a
liberty interest in plaintiff’s reputation, is dismissed against
all defendants without prejudice for plaintiff to re-plead this
claim in accordance with the accompanying Opinion.

1

See Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss in Part the Amended Complaint at 1.

-ii-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims for First
Amendment retaliation and conspiracy in Count I are dismissed
against all defendants without prejudice for plaintiff to replead these claims in accordance with the accompanying Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claim in Count II
against defendant County of Lancaster for violation of Title VII
and the claim in Count IV against all defendants for violation of
the PHRA, to the extent these claims are based on a hostile work
environment, are dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff to replead these claims in accordance with the accompanying Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims in Count I for
deprivation of substantive due process and politically-motivated
wrongful termination are withdrawn against all defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects,
defendants’ motion is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until
October 17, 2011 to file a second amended complaint in accordance
with this Order and accompanying Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event plaintiff does
not file a second amended complaint by October 17, 2011,
defendants shall have until October 31, 2011 to answer the
remaining claims.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

-iii-