RILEY v. LIBERTY BOROUGH et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION setting for the reasons that the federal claims asserted in the amended complaint 14 will be dismissed without prejudice, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint 15 will be denied as moot, and the remaining Pennsylvania state law claims will be forthwith remanded to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. An appropriate order will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/18/2018. (kjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUKE RILEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIBERTY BOROUGH and JANE
WIEGAND Individually,
Defendants.

CONTI, Chief District Judge

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 18-188

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Luke Riley (“Riley”) initiated this action by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1-2)
against his employer Liberty Borough (“Liberty”) and Liberty’s mayor at the relevant time
Jane Wiegand (“Wiegand”). Riley alleged, among other things, that Liberty and Wiegand
discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA”), and the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951-963. (Id.) The complaint contained three federal
claims and five claims asserted under Pennsylvania state law. (Id.) Riley filed an
amended complaint adding an additional Pennsylvania state law claim. (ECF No. 14.)
Liberty and Wiegand filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.)
Rather than file a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Riley filed a motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.)
The court at a hearing on June 25, 2018, denied the motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint because Riley did not set forth sufficient factual allegations
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal evidence of all the elements
of the three federal claims asserted in the proposed second amended complaint. The
court—as set forth fully on the record—explained that:
-

the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint did not raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal evidence that Riley was
subjected to severe and pervasive conduct because of his age, which is required
to state a claim for hostile work environment in violation of the ADEA;

-

Riley did not allege that he was discriminated against because of his race, color,
religion, sex, and national origin, and, therefore, he did not set forth a plausible
claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), Title VII;

-

to the extent the court could construe Riley’s Title VII retaliation claim as a claim
under the ADEA, Riley alleged the protected activity occurred after the alleged
adverse employment action, and therefore, Riley did not set forth factual
allegations sufficient to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of a causal link between Riley’s protected activity and the adverse
employment action taken against him; and

-

Riley did not set forth a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because a plaintiff
cannot obtain relief for age discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court declined to consider the state claims asserted by Riley because he failed

to state any plausible claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Pa. Nurses
Ass’n v. Pa. State Ed. Ass’n, 90 F.3d 797, 801 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that § 1447(d)
“permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims
where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). The court denied
Riley’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court, however,
permitted Riley three days to determine whether he wanted to file a new motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint. The court instructed that if Riley did not file a new
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint by 5:00 p.m. on the third day, it
would dismiss the federal claims without prejudice and remand the state claims to the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
Riley did not file a new motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The
court in an accompanying order will, therefore, dismiss the federal claims asserted in the
amended complaint without prejudice and remand forthwith the remaining state law
claims to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The motion to dismiss the
amended complaint (ECF No. 15) will be denied as moot. An appropriate order will be
entered.
BY THE COURT,
Dated: July 18, 2018

/s/ JOY FLOWERS CONTI
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Judge
2