Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARION v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA/WATER DEPARTMENT

March 28, 2001

PEARL MARION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA/WATER DEPARTMENT, GEORGE T. HAYES, BRENDA J. SHIELDS, MILES LADENHEIM, RICHARD E. ROY, DREW S. MIHOCKO, LORIN E. FIELDS, RAYMOND M. STANIEC, LAUREEN M. BOLES, ABDUL C. LATIF, JOSEPH GALANTE, AND RAYMOND DEFELICE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dubois, District Judge

ORDER & MEMORANDUM

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2001, upon consideration of the Complaint (Document No. 1, filed July 14, 2000), the Motion of Defendant Miles Ladenheim, M.D. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Document No. 4, August 7, 2000) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 5, filed August 17, 2000), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that:

A. The Motion of Defendant Miles Ladenheim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Document No. 4) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Motion of Defendant Miles Ladenheim, M.D. ("Dr. Ladenheim") to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") claims as there is no individual liability under these statutes. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1077-78 (3d Cir. 1996) (Title VII); Cohen v. Temple Physicians, Inc., 11 F. Supp.2d 733 (E.D.Pa. 1998) (ADEA); and
2. The Motion of Defendant Dr. Ladenheim is DENIED in all other respects and plaintiff's discrimination claims, brought on the basis of race, sex, and religion, shall be allowed to proceed against Dr. Ladenheim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") and Pennsylvania state tort law.
B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 5) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA claims against individual defendants George T. Hayes, Brenda J. Shields, Richard E. Roy, Drew S. Mihocko, Lorin E. Fields, Raymond M. Staniec, Laureen M. Boles, Abdul C. Latif, Joseph Galante, and Raymond DeFelice as there is no individual liability under these statutes. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1077-78 (3d Cir. 1996) (Title VII); Cohen v. Temple Physicians, Inc., 11 F. Supp.2d 733 (E.D.Pa. 1998) (ADEA);
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's Title VII and PHRA claims against the City of Philadelphia/Water Department;
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's ADEA claim against the City of Philadelphia/Water Department and plaintiff's age discrimination claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint with respect to her claim of discrimination on the basis of age against the City of Philadelphia/Water Department within twenty (20) days;
4. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's tort claims brought under Pennsylvania state law against the City of Philadelphia/Water Department and its employees in their official capacities; and
5. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects and plaintiff's discrimination claims, brought on the basis of race, sex, and religion, shall be allowed to proceed under the 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), the PHRA, and Pennsylvania state tort law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will schedule a preliminary pretrial conference in due course.

MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of allegations of workplace discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff, Pearl Marion ("Marion"), asserts that her employer, the City of Philadelphia/Water Department, and her co-workers have harassed her, and continue to harass her, in retaliation for filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and for filing a prior action in federal court. She also avers that defendants have discriminated against her on the basis of race, age, sex, and religion, and that defendants have conspired to harass her and discriminate against her. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.