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.

Heintz v. Fayette County Area Vocational Technical School

November 7, 2007

DONNA MARIE HEINTZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FAYETTE COUNTY AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, Chief District Judge.

OPINION and ORDER OF COURT SYNOPSIS

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff has filed a Brief in Opposition thereto. (Docket No. 13). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below, said Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts five counts against Defendants, Fayette County Area Vocational Technical School ("the School"), Dr. Edward Jeffreys, and William Trimbath. (Docket No. 8). Count I is titled "discrimination on the basis of sex" and is brought against the school and both individual Defendants in their official capacities only. Id. Count II is titled "state discrimination" and does not set forth which Defendant it is brought against. Id. Count III is titled "civil rights violations" and is brought against all Defendants. Id. Count IV is titled "assault and battery" and is brought against Defendant Trimbath. Id. Count V is titled "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and does not set forth which Defendant it is brought against. Id. Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of the following:

1. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") claims against the individually named Defendants;

2. The Title VII claims against the individually named Defendants;

3. The punitive damage claims under the PHRA and Title VII;

4. The Pennsylvania Constitutional law claims;

5. The claims for punitive damages under Section 1983; and

6. The claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff has filed a Brief in Opposition thereto. (Docket No. 13). The issues are now ripe for review.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In deciding a Motion to Dismiss all factual allegations, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Haspel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 06-3716, 2007 WL 2030272, at *1 (3d Cir. July 16, 2007). However, "[factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. at 1969. While a court will accept well-pleaded allegations as true for the purposes of the motion, it will not ...


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.