United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendants' answer. (ECF No. 12). The issue this Court must decide is whether to grant Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendants' answer when Defendants responded "denied as stated" to paragraphs 34, 39, 59, 62, 63, 66, 74, 76, 92, 94, 95-98, and 114 of the complaint. Having reviewed the parties' briefs, the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, and relevant case law, this Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to strike, because Defendants' response, "denied as stated, " is sufficiently specific so that Plaintiff will have adequate notice of the claims that are at issue so that she can prepare her case.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the federal claims made under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law clams made under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Plaintiff Linda Ferraraccio brought suit against Guardian Home and Community Services, Guardian LTC Management, Inc., and Guardian Elder Care, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. (ECF No. 1). In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges facts relating to her rate of compensation, treatment required by Defendants, and conversations with Defendants' employees. ( Id. at ¶ 34, 39, 59, 62, 63, 66, 74, 76, 92, 94, 95-98, and 114). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:
34. In 2011, Plaintiff received a significant raise, from $20 per hour to $22.95 per hour.
* * *
39. Both Plaintiff's supervisor at [Defendant], Catherine Grove "Grove", and Defendants' worker's compensation program required Plaintiff to receive treatment at [DuBois Regional medical Center].
* * *
59. On or about February 2, 2012, when Plaintiff's husband saw [Peter] Varischetti [a shareholder, director, and office of Defendant], Varischetti told Plaintiff's husband that Plaintiff should have the surgery and should not worry about her job because it would be there when she returned.
* * *
62. Thereafter, at a staff meeting, Plaintiff's condition was again discussed and Catherine Grove announced that she could no longer speak to Plaintiff because Plaintiff ...