GARDNER-LOZADA v. SEPTA, 13-2755. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150227d29
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28), Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 33), SEPTA's Second Motion In Limine (Docket No. 41), and Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 43), for the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court hereby ORDERS that SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28) and SEPTA's Secon
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28), Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 33), SEPTA's Second Motion In Limine (Docket No. 41), and Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 43), for the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court hereby ORDERS that SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28) and SEPTA's Second..
More
ORDER
GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28), Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 33), SEPTA's Second Motion In Limine (Docket No. 41), and Ms. Gardner-Lozada's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 43), for the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court hereby ORDERS that SEPTA's Motion In Limine (Docket No. 28) and SEPTA's Second Motion In Limine (Docket No. 41) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART so that:
1. The Motions are DENIED as to:
a. Evidence and testimony regarding the circumstances underlying Ms. Gardner-Lozada's 2008 EEOC Charge and 2009 civil complaint;
b. Evidence and testimony regarding the circumstances under which Ms. Gardner-Lozada became NORAC certified; and
2. The Motions are GRANTED as to:
a. Evidence and testimony regarding Ms. Gardner-Lozada's failure to be promoted to Director of Transportation — Bus Operations in December 2011;
b. Evidence and testimony regarding Thomas Bateman's transfer to the position of Transportation Manager;
c. Evidence and testimony regarding the male SEPTA employees listed in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint; and
d. Evidence and testimony suggesting that the process whereby Ms. Gardner-Lozada became NORAC certified was distinct from the process whereby Mr. Bateman became NORAC certified.
Source: Leagle
