HOWARD v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE et al
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FMLA FAILURE-TO-REINSTATE CLAIMS, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AS TO ALL REMAINING CLAIMS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED AS PARTIES TO THIS ACTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 1/9/2013. 1/9/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al.,
AND NOW, this 9th
day of January 2013, upon consideration of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 25), Plaintiff’s Response thereto (Doc. No.
27), Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23), Defendants’
Response thereto (Doc. No. 28), and Defendants’ Supplement (Doc. No. 32), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED;
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s
FMLA failure-to-reinstate claims against Defendants Lewandowski and
Stoner, as well as to Plaintiff’s ADA, RA, and PHRA failure-to-accommodate
3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the remaining
claims in the amended complaint;
4. The John Doe defendants are DISMISSED as parties to this action.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
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?