In Hofferica v. St. Mary Medical Center, plaintiff Kathleen Hofferica sued her employer for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), claiming interference with her FMLA rights due to the employer's failure to provide sufficient notice about her right to reinstatement and the risk of losing her position if she did not return by February 2009. The defendant moved to dismiss the FMLA interference claim based on inadequate notice. The court dismissed this portion of the claim, holding that the complaint lacked concrete factual allegations of notice deficiencies, did not plead prejudice from any such failure, and did not meet the requirements of the applicable FMLA regulations in effect at the time.
David Hightower, an African-American principal employed by the Easton Area School District since 1989, sued the district under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. He alleged a hostile work environment, discrimination in promotions and discipline based on race, and retaliation after complaining about discriminatory conduct. The district moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part after examining undisputed facts on Hightower's employment and promotion applications, along with disputed evidence of alleged discriminatory statements and actions by administrators, to assess whether genuine issues of material fact existed under the relevant legal standards.
Plaintiff Kathleen Hofferica, a nurse, sued her employer St. Mary Medical Center under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA after her termination following medical leave for Méniére’s disease. St. Mary moved to dismiss the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, arguing that Hofferica failed to allege she could return to work when her leave expired. The court dismissed the interference claim based on refusal to reinstate her, as she did not plead an ability to perform her job duties at the end of leave. For the notice-related interference claim, the court noted that existing law suggests it fails due to lack of prejudice but granted Hofferica leave to brief the issue further. The court found that Hofferica had stated a plausible FMLA retaliation claim.
This case is a product liability suit in which plaintiffs Judith and Donald Pusey alleged that a syringe manufactured by defendant Becton Dickinson caused an infection during Judith's breast expansion procedure after a mastectomy, leading to removal of the expander; the syringe was among those later recalled for packaging defects. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, and loss of consortium. The court granted Becton's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to support any genuine dispute of material fact with record citations showing that the specific syringe was defective or that any defect caused the infection, despite having access to all relevant discovery including medical records and recall documents; evidence of the recall alone was insufficient to establish causation or defect without additional proof.
This case is a diversity action in which subcontractor Haines & Kibblehouse sued general contractor Balfour Beatty for over $1 million in extra costs allegedly caused by delays, incomplete predecessor work, and unilateral scheduling changes on a PennDOT highway construction project. Balfour moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or to stay the litigation under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7), raising defenses based on the subcontract's pay-when-paid clause and prior court rulings. The court examined the procedural history across state and federal filings, including earlier dismissals, remands, and an appeal, and analyzed whether judicial estoppel barred the claims due to the plaintiff's inconsistent positions on jurisdiction and new facts before the Third Circuit. Core reasoning centered on whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted bad faith or affirmative misrepresentation sufficient to invoke estoppel, while noting that courts generally do not apply estoppel to mere switches on jurisdictional issues.
This case concerns a dispute between PAETEC and Verizon over whether PAETEC's federal tariff for interstate switched access services complied with FCC rate benchmarks and whether Verizon was obligated to pay the billed charges. In prior rulings, the court determined that PAETEC's tariff was not void, certain rates complied with the benchmark while others did not, and some were deemed lawful. The court now enters final judgment on the declaratory judgment claims under Rule 54(b), certifies issues for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), orders Verizon to pay PAETEC over $3.8 million for unpaid SWAS charges, declares SWAS-DC charges deemed lawful for a specific period without refund liability, and stays remaining claims pending appeal. The court reasoned that the parties agreed on these steps to allow efficient appellate review without needing FCC referral on remaining issues.