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.

Marchionda v. Precision Kidd Steel Co., Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

June 19, 2015

ROBERT MARCHIONDA, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
PRECISION KIDD STEEL CO., INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

ROBERT C. MITCHELL, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Defendant Precision Kidd Steel Co., Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Precision") motion to dismiss [ECF No. 5] Plaintiff Robert Marchionda Sr.'s amended complaint for failure to join a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

This action is one under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in which Plaintiff alleges that his former employer, Defendant Precision discriminated against him on the basis of his age. The facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true, as necessary for purposes of this motion. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 1988 in various capacities, until his retirement in April 2009. In September 2010, the plant manager Robert Martello ("Martello") asked Plaintiff to return to work for Defendant to train a replacement for his position. Plaintiff accepted and after Plaintiff completed the training of the replacement, Martello asked if he would remain a full-time employee for Defendant and Plaintiff agreed. Plaintiff and union representatives asked that Plaintiff be classified as a union employee after sixty days of employment, in conformance with standard union practices for new-hires. Martello interfered with this process and prevented Plaintiff from rejoining the union. Martello also referred to Plaintiff as "the old man." A few months before Plaintiff's ultimate termination, Defendant hired two younger, inexperienced employees for work the Plaintiff could have performed if given the same training that was provided to the younger employees. Two weeks prior to Plaintiff's termination, Martello informed the union president and vice president that he did not know how much longer Plaintiff would be working for Defendant implying he was older. Defendant fired Plaintiff on November 14, 2013 for being a non-union employee.

After exhausting his administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff filed suit in this Court bringing the following claims: (1) Age Discrimination under the ADEA; (2) Retaliation under the ADEA; and (3) Age Discrimination under the PHRA. Defendant presently seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint by arguing that the union is a necessary and indispensable party that must be joined.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), the court may dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to join a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Rule 19 determines when joinder of a party is compulsory and provides:

A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:
(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). If a person required to be joined under Rule 19(a) cannot be feasibly joined, "the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed." Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b). See Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Shepard Niles, Inc., 11 F.3d 399, 404 (3d Cir. 1993). Decisions made pursuant to Rule 19 "are to be made in the practical context of each particular case, leaving to the sound discretion of the court the question of how the account should best proceed under the circumstances." Lewis v. B.P. Oil, Inc., No. ...


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.