Finley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al

Filing 32

ORDER THAT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; to wit: 1. The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to Count I (Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974) of Plainti ffs Complaint: a. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendants Herbert and Nish and judgement is entered IN FAVOR OF these Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff on this Count. b. The motion is DENIED with respect to Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania Department of Corrections and SCI Waymart. 2. The motion is DENIED as to Count II (Violations of FMLA) of Plaintiffs Complaint. However, summary judgment as to liability only shall be entered IN FAVOR OF the plaintiff and AGAINST the defendants on Plaintiffs FMLA interference claim. The remedies to which Plaintiff may be entitled present issues for trial. 3. The motion is DENIED as to Count III (Violations of FMLA -Retaliation) of Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. The motion is GRANTED as to Count I V (Violation of PHRA) and judgment is entered IN FAVOR OF the Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff on this Count. 5. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs claim of Constructive Discharge and judgment is entered IN FAVOR OF the Defendants and A GAINST Plaintiff on this claim. 6. Defendants' motion for qualified immunity is DENIED. 7. Atelephone scheduling conference will be held on Wednesday, May 6,2015, at 2:15 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiff is responsible for arranging the call to (570) 2075750, and all parties should be ready to proceed before the undersigned is contacted.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 4/30/15. (jfg)

Download PDF
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KENNETH FINLEY Plaintiff , 3:12·CV·2194 (JUDGE MARIANI) V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. f I I I ~ Defendants ! ORDER j AND NOW, THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015, upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) by Defendants, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, SCI Waymart, Captain Patrick Herbert, and Superintendent Joseph Nish, and all accompanying briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; to wit: 1. The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to Count I (Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974) of Plaintiffs Complaint: a. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendants Herbert and Nish and judgement is entered IN FAVOR OF these Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff t t I ~ t t ! f t t I I , on this Count. i b. The motion is DENIED with respect to Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and SCI Waymart. t I I i r I ! 2. The motion is DENIED as to Count II (Violations of FMLA) of Plaintiffs Complaint. However, summary judgment as to liability only shall be entered IN FAVOR OF the plaintiff and AGAINST the defendants on Plaintiffs FMLA interference claim. The remedies to which Plaintiff may be entitled present issues for trial. 3. The motion is DENIED as to Count III (Violations of FMLA - Retaliation) of Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. The motion is GRANTED as to Count IV (Violation of PHRA) and judgment is entered IN FAVOR OF the Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff on this Count. 5. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs claim of Constructive Discharge and judgment is entered IN FAVOR OF the Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff on this claim. 6. Defendants' motion for qualified immunity is DENIED. 7. A telephone scheduling conference will be held on Wednesday, May 6,2015, at 2:15 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiff is responsible for arranging the call to (570) 207­ 5750, and all parties should be ready to proceed before the undersigned is contacted. -- obert D. Mariani United States District Judge 2

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?