Joy Flowers Conti

In this case, plaintiffs, including Deborah Prise and Heather Rady along with over 700 opt-in plaintiffs who were nonexempt employees at Alderwoods funeral homes, brought a collective action under the FLSA alleging they were not paid overtime for work performed under five corporate policies, including community work, on-call time, overtime preapproval requirements, training for insurance licenses, and meal breaks. After conditional certification of nine employment positions and extensive discovery involving sample plaintiffs, the defendant moved to decertify the class. The court granted the motion to decertify, holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing they were similarly situated because of significant variations in how the policies were applied across different positions, locations, and time periods, as well as individual differences in job duties, compensation practices, and potential defenses like statutes of limitations. The court noted a lack of cohesiveness in the claims and that individualized inquiries would predominate, making collective treatment inappropriate.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Darnella Wilson suing American General Finance and employee Bruce Casteel for defamation as libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law, alleging that defendants fabricated and published false statements about her mortgage account being delinquent to the Better Business Bureau and her attorney despite her providing proof of timely payments. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss both claims, while plaintiff moved to strike certain affirmative defenses. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the motion to strike in full. It applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to evaluate whether the amended complaint stated viable claims, noting that legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations and that conditional privilege could apply to some publications but required further analysis. The ruling focused on whether the alleged statements were actionable and whether the IIED claim met the threshold for outrageous conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Shane Stadtmiller, a military veteran with hand and mental health injuries from service in Iraq, sued his former employer UPMC Health Plan after being terminated from a project manager role. He alleged violations of USERRA and Pennsylvania's Military Affairs Act for discrimination based on his National Guard service, as well as claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate his disabilities and wrongful discharge. The court granted UPMC's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It found that Stadtmiller received performance warnings for incomplete work plans and inability to manage multiple tasks, was provided mentoring, and was terminated for those documented deficiencies. The court concluded there was no evidence that his military obligations or disabilities were the reason for the firing or that the employer's stated performance-based reasons were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Marlyn Louise Taliaferro filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits based on bipolar disorder and depression. The ALJ concluded that drug and alcohol addiction was a material contributing factor to her disability, a finding supported by medical records from psychiatric and rehabilitation facilities showing substantial improvement in functioning once substance use ceased. The court reviewed the administrative record, including GAF scores, consultative examiner reports, and evidence of the claimant's history of substance abuse, to assess whether the ALJ properly weighed the evidence on the materiality of DAA and the claimant's functional limitations. Two principal issues addressed were the ALJ's rejection of a "marked" limitation noted by the consultative examiner and the allocation of the burden of proof regarding DAA materiality.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

In this case, the estate of a locomotive engineer killed in a 2010 train collision sued the Union Railroad under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and related federal statutes, alleging negligence including defective equipment like an unsafe seat and missing alerter, a malfunctioning radio and signal, inadequate training, dispatcher errors, and delayed emergency response. The district court granted in part and denied in part the railroad's motion to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice claims based on design defects or failure to install equipment because they were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) and Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and thus not actionable under FELA. Claims for failure to properly maintain the radio, a malfunctioning signal, dispatcher negligence, and delayed response survived as they were not preempted and adequately stated under FELA and FRSA. Additional claims for improper training, lack of a second crew member, and certain seat issues were dismissed without prejudice for insufficient factual pleading beyond labels and conclusions.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In United States v. Tilley, the government filed motions to enforce stipulations in the defendant's plea agreement regarding the loss amount (between $400,000 and $1,000,000) tied to his convictions for mail fraud and wire fraud, claiming the defendant breached the agreement by disputing that amount, seeking to withdraw his plea, and failing to accept responsibility for other charges. The court denied the motions without prejudice, ruling that the defendant would not breach the agreement by presenting evidence of loss amounts for purposes of a sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or restitution calculations. The core reasoning was that the plea agreement expressly permitted the parties to bring forward new information unknown at the time of execution and placed no limits on evidence related to restitution, while direct challenges to the stipulated loss for guideline purposes would violate its terms.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cerutti v. Frito-Lay, Inc., ten named plaintiffs who worked as route sales representatives sued their employer for unpaid overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, alleging violations from April 2006 onward on behalf of themselves and a potential class. Frito-Lay moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under the Pennsylvania motor carrier exception and that any overtime due was properly paid using the fluctuating workweek method of calculation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the undisputed facts about the plaintiffs' driving duties, compensation structure under a collective bargaining agreement, and the legal standards for exemptions and overtime computation under state law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs Patricia Wright and Kevin West sued Owens Corning over allegedly defective roofing shingles installed on their homes, claiming breaches of warranty after experiencing leaks and damage. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any such claims had been discharged through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, which was confirmed by the bankruptcy court in 2006. The district court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' claims constituted pre-confirmation claims under the Bankruptcy Code that were discharged by the reorganization plan. The court reasoned that publication notice of the bankruptcy proceedings was constitutionally sufficient for unknown future claimants like the plaintiffs, and that the plan expressly addressed and discharged such warranty claims while providing a mechanism for limited post-confirmation resolutions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Percy Hogan, who was injured while operating a malfunctioning power jack at his workplace and sued his employer Giant Eagle and the alleged manufacturer Raymond in state court for negligence and products liability claims. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds based on improper joinder of Giant Eagle, Hogan moved to amend his complaint to add a spoliation of evidence claim against Giant Eagle and to remand the case, while Giant Eagle moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion to remand with prejudice, denied the amendment in part, and granted the motion to dismiss the claims against Giant Eagle. It reasoned that the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act bars the suit against the employer and that no valid claim for spoliation of evidence sounding in negligence could be pled under the circumstances presented.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Beverly Haisley, a former PNC employee, who sought long-term disability benefits under the company's self-funded ERISA plan after becoming unable to work due to depression, anxiety, and peripheral neuropathy following her mother's death. Sedgwick, the claims administrator, denied her claim and appeal, leading Haisley to file suit against Sedgwick, PNC, and the Plan. The court granted Haisley's motion for summary judgment in part and denied the defendants' motion, ordering the Plan to pay benefits for the 24-month period from October 2007 to October 2009, while remanding the matter for a determination on benefits beyond that date. The decision was based on findings that the denial process was flawed, including the mishandling of medical evidence and inadequate review of the plaintiff's condition relative to her job duties.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved Allstate seeking a declaratory judgment that its insured, Squires, was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under his policy for injuries sustained when he swerved to avoid a box on the highway while driving alone. The court granted Allstate's motion for judgment on the pleadings, declaring that Squires had no claim for UM benefits. The core reasoning was that the policy required bodily injury to arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured auto, but the box—not any vehicle—was the instrumentality that caused the accident, rendering any connection to an uninsured motor vehicle merely incidental under Pennsylvania law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In United States v. Crews, the defendant was convicted by a jury in February 2010 of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, triggering a ten-year mandatory minimum under the statutes then in effect. The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted in August 2010 and effective for guidelines in November 2010, reduced the mandatory minimum to five years and lowered the applicable guideline range, but Crews was sentenced in December 2010. The court ruled that the Act does not apply retroactively to this case because the statute contains no express retroactivity provision, and the general savings statute (1 U.S.C. § 109) preserves penalties incurred under the prior law absent such a provision. Relying on Third Circuit precedent such as United States v. Jacobs, the court applied the pre-Act law, treated Crews as a career offender with a 360-months-to-life guideline range, and imposed a 188-month sentence after a departure.

criminal law

Ademola Ilori, an African-American software engineer formerly employed by Carnegie Mellon University, brought claims against the university and his supervisor alleging race-based hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to promote, and constructive discharge under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims but granted it on all remaining claims. The dismissed claims were either time-barred or unsupported by sufficient evidence for a jury to find in the plaintiff's favor, based on review of the factual record regarding work assignments, performance reviews, complaints, and the timing of adverse actions.

civil rightslabor & employment

Frank Niewierski appealed the denial of social security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability since 2007 due to arteriovenous malformations, telangiectasias, and severe anemia. The administrative law judge found that Niewierski was not disabled and retained the residual functional capacity for light work, a determination upheld on review by the Appeals Council. After examining the medical evidence, daily living reports, and vocational expert testimony, the district court determined that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court therefore denied the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves consolidated FLSA collective actions filed by employees of Enterprise Rent-A-Car subsidiaries against parent company ERAC-Missouri, alleging wage and hour violations and seeking to establish the parent as a joint employer. The court considered motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the parent and for summary judgment on the joint employer question after multidistrict litigation consolidation. The court determined that personal jurisdiction and joint employer liability require more than mere corporate ownership or overlapping boards of directors, instead looking to factors such as the parent's direct power over hiring, firing, pay, and supervision of the subsidiaries' employees. It rejected arguments that standard parent-subsidiary relationships alone create joint employer status under the FLSA.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves claims by the estate and family of Nicholas Haniotakis, who was fatally shot by Pennsylvania State Trooper Samuel Nassan and Pittsburgh police officer Terence Donnelly after a vehicle pursuit initiated due to a broken headlight. The amended complaint asserts § 1983 claims for excessive force against the officers and supervisory liability against their superiors, alleging that Haniotakis posed no threat when shot from behind and that the supervisors knew of Nassan's prior violent history but failed to address it. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a Rule 11 sanctions motion, applying Fourth Amendment standards from cases like Scott v. Harris and Brosseau v. Haugen to evaluate whether the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable given the stopped vehicle and lack of imminent danger. The opinion examines qualified immunity defenses and the sufficiency of allegations regarding the officers' conduct and the supervisors' knowledge, focusing on whether the facts as pled state plausible claims.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned James Swift, a participant in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the McKeesport Housing Authority, who alleged that MHA and its employees harassed him over his religion and disability, retaliated against him for objecting to an inspector, and improperly terminated his benefits after a disputed recertification process, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and First Amendment, plus a claim under the Contract Clause. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish municipal liability for the constitutional claims under any of the recognized theories and that the Contract Clause claim was not viable because the voucher program does not create a contractual obligation.

civil rightsfederal power

In Hubbell v. World Kitchen, LLC, plaintiff Janice L. Hubbell asserted claims under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act alleging that her union, the USW entities, discriminated against her on the basis of sex by abandoning the grievance process for a ten-day suspension imposed by her employer. The USW entities filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's prior denial of summary judgment on those claims. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed about whether the union's decision not to pursue the grievance was motivated by sex discrimination, given evidence supporting an inference of underlying employer discrimination. The decision rested on the statutory language prohibiting unions from otherwise discriminating against individuals because of sex and distinguished precedents where summary judgment for unions was appropriate only after a finding of no employer discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The plaintiffs, five police officers employed by Elizabeth Township, sued the township, its police chief McNeilly, and another official Black under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and prior restraint, along with Pennsylvania state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and slander per se. The claims arose from the officers' complaints and public statements regarding the handling of parking citations, which prompted alleged adverse actions and public comments by the chief. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, limited to qualified immunity and high public official immunity after earlier dismissals of other counts, the court granted judgment to the defendants. The reasoning centered on the absence of evidence that the officers were compelled to attend hearings or that the chief's statements at public meetings violated clearly established rights, with the speech relating to resident complaints about citations and no showing of unconstitutional restraint or retaliation.

civil rightsfree speech

Lindsey Yeager sued her former employer UPMC Horizon for gender-based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging incidents involving a physician's conduct and adverse actions after she reported issues, including denial of her prior work-from-home arrangement. The court granted the defendant's partial motion for summary judgment on the PHRA hostile work environment claim and all retaliation claims, but denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claims to the extent they concerned the work-from-home prohibition. The core reasoning for the PHRA dismissal centered on timeliness requirements and the effect of the work-sharing agreement between the EEOC and PHRA, while the Title VII claims proceeded because genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether the employment actions were materially adverse.

labor & employmentcivil rights