MLINARCHIK v. BRENNAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint based on improper service of process because Plaintiff has since cured her defective service; The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claim; The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII claim; Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim will not be dismissed, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/9/2018. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANNA MARIE MLINARCHIK,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-257
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
MEGAN BRENNAN, POST MASTER
GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Megan Brennan, the
Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). (ECF No. 20.) The Motion has
been fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 21, 26) and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper because the events giving rise
to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
This case arises from Plaintiff's employment with USPS. Plaintiff has worked as a Mail
Processing Clerk for USPS for over 30 years. (ECF No. 19 at 'll 9.) In August 2011, Plaintiff
The following allegations are derived from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19). The Court
accepts these facts as true for the sole purpose of deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss.
underwent MRI imaging which indicated "residual effects of right temporal craniotomy, with
right internal auditory canal decompression of an acoustic neuroma." (Id. at
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?