The case involved Ronald Heneghan, a faculty member at Northampton Community College on an initial appointment contract, who sued after the college rescinded its decision to grant him a standard (tenured) appointment. Heneghan alleged a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and gender discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. It reasoned that Heneghan lacked a protected property interest in tenure because the collective bargaining agreement allowed non-renewal of initial appointments without appeal during the first five years and the board's initial vote did not create a binding entitlement. On the discrimination claims, the court found no evidence that gender motivated the decision, as the college cited concerns over collegiality and conduct with students.
Mr. Antkowiak sued TaxMasters and related entities and individuals alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and state laws based on deceptive practices in selling tax resolution services, including undisclosed fees and refund policies. The court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The reasoning focused on the formation and applicability of the arbitration agreement, the sufficiency of allegations regarding the sales process and contract terms, and whether facts supported piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant personally liable.
The case concerned Waterfront Renaissance Associates LLP's claims that the Old City Civic Association and Rivers Edge Civic Association breached a 1989 Covenant of Restrictions by failing to support its development rights on a Philadelphia waterfront parcel. The covenant, brokered by the City Planning Commission during rezoning from G-2 to C-4, imposed limits on parking, setbacks, and other features while requiring the associations to assist with permits and variances. In 2005-2006, the associations engaged with city officials regarding an overlay district and height limits, prompting the lawsuit. The court granted the associations' motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, determining that the covenant's terms did not create liability for the alleged conduct.
The case concerns employment discrimination claims brought by Richard Boandl, a former IRS agent with a disability from polio, against the Treasury Department. Boandl alleged he was denied promotions due to his disability, age, and gender; was denied a reasonable accommodation in the form of a cell phone; and suffered retaliation, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that some claims failed for lack of evidence of pretext or an objectively hostile environment while others, including certain failure-to-promote and accommodation claims, raised genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.
This case involves indirect purchasers of the antidepressant Wellbutrin SR, including health and welfare plans, who filed a class action against GlaxoSmithKline alleging that the company engaged in monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, along with common-law unjust enrichment claims in multiple states. After previously ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court addressed GSK's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint asserting claims under the laws of eighteen to twenty-seven jurisdictions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, conducting a state-by-state analysis to assess whether the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the required elements, such as standing for indirect purchasers, direct benefits for unjust enrichment, or exhaustion of remedies under each state's specific doctrines.
The case involved Michael and Randall Wright, who were suspected of marijuana distribution based on controlled buys by a confidential informant. DEA agents obtained and executed search warrants for their apartments, recovering large quantities of marijuana, cash, drug paraphernalia, and guns, but the warrants referred to an impounded affidavit for the list of seizable items and lacked a proper attachment describing those items. The brothers moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrants failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The court granted the motions to suppress, finding that the warrants were invalid on their face and that the good-faith exception did not apply due to the manner in which the warrants were prepared and issued.
.jpg?width=900)