DANAO v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, 14-6621. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150520f45
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 18, 2015
Latest Update: May 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER , Senior District Judge . AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of (1) the Motion by Defendant Local (the "Union") to Dismiss (Docket No. 10), Plaintiff Vincent Danao's Response (Docket No. 15), and the Union's Reply Brief (Docket No. 18); and (2) the Motion by Defendant ABM Janitorial Services ("ABM") to Dismiss and to Strike (Docket No. 9), Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 16), and ABM's Reply Brief (Docket No. 17), it is hereby ORDE
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER , Senior District Judge . AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of (1) the Motion by Defendant Local (the "Union") to Dismiss (Docket No. 10), Plaintiff Vincent Danao's Response (Docket No. 15), and the Union's Reply Brief (Docket No. 18); and (2) the Motion by Defendant ABM Janitorial Services ("ABM") to Dismiss and to Strike (Docket No. 9), Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 16), and ABM's Reply Brief (Docket No. 17), it is hereby ORDER..
More
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of (1) the Motion by Defendant Local (the "Union") to Dismiss (Docket No. 10), Plaintiff Vincent Danao's Response (Docket No. 15), and the Union's Reply Brief (Docket No. 18); and (2) the Motion by Defendant ABM Janitorial Services ("ABM") to Dismiss and to Strike (Docket No. 9), Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 16), and ABM's Reply Brief (Docket No. 17), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Union's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff's leave to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, correcting the deficiencies identified in the Court's Memorandum.
2. Defendant ABM's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Plaintiff's claim for religious discrimination in Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
b. Plaintiff's claim for religious discrimination in violation of the PHRA in Count V is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
c. Plaintiff's claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act in Count II is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent Plaintiff alleges disability based on either his stress, anxiety, and/or depression conditions, or on his neck and back injuries;
d. To the extent Plaintiff premises any claim on EEOC Charges filed in 2007 or 2009, those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
e. Plaintiffs claim for wrongful discharge in Count VI is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
f. Defendant ABM's Motion to Strike is GRANTED with respect to Complaint Paragraphs 30, 56, and 6, to the extent Paragraph 6 references disability due to stress, anxiety, and depression; ABM's Motion to Strike is DENIED in all other respects.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
