LAROCHELLE v. WILMAC CORPORATION et al

Filing 118

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 10/21/16. 10/21/16 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY LAROCHELLE, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILMAC CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
: CIVIL ACTION
:
: 12-CV-5567
:
:
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration in part (Doc. No. 115), and Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration in part (Doc. No. 116), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
motion is DENIED.
In the interest of clarifying this Court’s memorandum and opinion dated September 27,
2016 (Doc. Nos. 113 and 114), IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1.

When plaintiff LaRochelle’s Title VII retaliation claim for reporting sexual and

racial harassment survived summary judgment, plaintiff LaRochelle’s retaliation claims under
the PHRA and Section 1981, based on the same evidence, also survived summary judgment.
2.

When plaintiff Vasquez’s Title VII retaliation claim survived summary judgment,

plaintiff Vasquez’s retaliation claim under the PHRA, based on the same evidence, also survived
summary judgment.

3.

When plaintiff Shearer’s ADA retaliation claim survived summary judgment,

plaintiff Shearer’s retaliation claim under the PHRA, based on the same evidence, also survived
summary judgment.

BY THE COURT

/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.