Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

David Hewett v. Xplore Technologies Corporation of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 11, 2013

DAVID HEWETT
v.
XPLORE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Baylson, J.

MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in this case will be DENIED. Plaintiff brings an age discrimination case, with common law claims added. Plaintiff has set forth a plausible, factual scenario detailing his employment for the Defendant and eventual involuntary termination on April 3, 2009. Plaintiff sets forth sufficiently specific facts showing age discrimination and adds as an alternative claim, an assertion of disparate impact upon Defendant's employees over the age of forty. The Motion to Dismiss disingenuously dwells on the disparate impact claim when it is clear it is only an alternative basis for relief. For this reason, the Court need not dwell on the arguments raised by the Defendant because the Defendant has misstated the essence of Plaintiff's claim.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has also pled a claim of tortious interference with existing or prospective contractual relations, in which Plaintiff asserts that Defendant defamed him to a prospective employer. Plaintiff specifically identifies the name of this prospective employer, and alleges that Defendant's defamatory remarks to this employer resulted in Plaintiff's existing or prospective contractual relationships not being completed. These are sufficient allegations for pleading purposes. Defendant can secure additional facts through discovery.

The Court has also reviewed the Complaint's allegations for defamation, injurious falsehood (disparagement), and invasion of privacy/false light. Defendant's arguments to dismiss the claims presume requirements more than federal pleading demands, and will be rejected.

An appropriate Order follows.

20130311

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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