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.

OLSEN v. BOROUGH OF NEW HOLLAND

April 30, 2004.

MARIA A. OLSEN, Plaintiff,
v.
BOROUGH OF NEW HOLLAND, NEW HOLLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, and EDWARD L. SPRECHER, Chief of Police, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge

OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on All Plaintiff's Claims, which motion was filed September 15, 2003. For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all counts of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, we grant defendants' motion and enter judgment in favor of defendants. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

  This civil action arises from plaintiff's employment by the New Holland Police Department. On November 18, 2002 plaintiff filed a Complaint against defendants alleging violations of: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17 ("Title VII"); (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213 ("ADA"); and (3) the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of December 20, 1991, P.L. 414, No. 51, §§ 1-11, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 951-963 ("PHRA"). On September 15, 2003 plaintiff moved for summary judgment on all counts of plaintiff's Complaint.

  For the reasons which follow, we now grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and enter judgment in defendants' favor on all counts of the Complaint.

  STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

  Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that judgment shall be rendered where it is shown that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Where a moving defendant does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, he need only point out that "there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 275 (1986).

  Moreover, a non-moving party cannot establish that there exist genuine issues of material fact on mere allegations. The non-movant with a burden of proof must produce a sufficient evidentiary basis from which a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986).

  FINDINGS OF FACT

  Based upon the pleadings, record papers, depositions and exhibits of the parties, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact:

  1. Plaintiff was hired as a police officer at the Borough of New Holland in 1989.*fn1

  2. Plaintiff utilized both the Department's unisex locker room with restrooms, showers and a changing area and the public ladies' restroom.*fn2 3. In the early 1990s plaintiff reported to her supervisor, Chief Edward L. Sprecher, that someone had glued the lock on her desk shut and glued her coffee mug to her desk.*fn3

  4. On January 2, 1993 plaintiff notified Chief Sprecher that someone altered a training request form submitted by plaintiff to read "I will perform oral sex on demand."*fn4

  5. On or about January 30, 2000 plaintiff reported to defendants a work injury caused by wearing the traditional police gun belt.*fn5

  6. Plaintiff took a workers' compensation leave of absence from May 2000 to August 2000.*fn6

  7. During her leave of absence, plaintiff and Chief Sprecher discussed alternatives to plaintiff's gun belt.*fn7 8. Defendants fitted plaintiff with a lighter automatic weapon made of plastic.*fn8 9. Additionally, Chief Sprecher ordered a smaller holster for plaintiff's use with her own, smaller, off-duty weapon.*fn9

  10. While awaiting the arrival of plaintiff's smaller holster, plaintiff was assigned to work the desk for the absent police secretary.*fn10

  11. During plaintiff's leave of absence, defendants offered plaintiff a "gate keeper" position at the community pool in July 2000, which position plaintiff refused.*fn11

  12. Wearing the smaller holster and the lighter gun did not satisfy plaintiff. The parties discussed with plaintiff's doctor, Dr. Zartman, fitting plaintiff with a tactical ...


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.