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.

Bahr v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Public Welfare

February 27, 2007

WILLIAM S. BAHR, PLAINTIFF
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, PENNSYLVANIA SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, TIMOTHY PHILMECK, PATRICIA HIDUK, VICTORIA SIDONI, LAMAR KIPP, DAVID VANDERLYKE, FRANK DETRICH, AMANDA WORTHINGTON, CANDICE THURSTON, ANNEMARIE BURKE, KAY GREEN AND HARRY DURHAM, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley

MEMORANDUM

Before the court for disposition is the defendants' motion to dismiss the instant employment discrimination complaint.*fn1 Also before the court are several miscellaneous motions filed by the plaintiff pro se. These matters are ripe for decision.

Background

Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare employed plaintiff for over seventeen years as a maintenance worker. He asserts that between January 2004 through March 2004 he was subjected to harassment due to a vocal disability, a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and psychological torture and terrorization. He asserts that he was forced to resign for health reasons because of the harassment.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking to recover under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act,("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, ("PHRA"), 43 PENN. CONS. STAT. § 951, et seq. and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. After the filing of the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), bringing the case to its present posture.

Jurisdiction

As this case is brought pursuant to the ADA, FMLA and Title VII, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.") We have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law PHRA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Standard of review

When a 12(b)(6) motion is filed, the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations are tested. The issue is whether the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, support a claim upon which relief can be granted. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and give the pleader the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can fairly be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).

Discussion

Defendants assert that all of plaintiff's statutory claims should be dismissed. We will discuss them in seriatim.

I. Title VII/PHRA

First, the defendants attack the plaintiff's Title VII sex discrimination cause of action.*fn2 After a careful review, we find that the plaintiff has not properly alleged a sex discrimination claim.

Title VII provides that:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's ...


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.