Filed: Dec. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER GERALD J. PAPPERT , District Judge . AND NOW , this 28th day of December, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32), Defendant's Response (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 43), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 40), Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 42) and after hearing oral argument (ECF No. 53), it is hereby ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED ; 2. Defendant's Motion is G
Summary: ORDER GERALD J. PAPPERT , District Judge . AND NOW , this 28th day of December, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32), Defendant's Response (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 43), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 40), Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 42) and after hearing oral argument (ECF No. 53), it is hereby ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED ; 2. Defendant's Motion is GR..
More
ORDER
GERALD J. PAPPERT, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32), Defendant's Response (ECF No. 41), Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 43), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 40), Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 42) and after hearing oral argument (ECF No. 53), it is hereby ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED;
2. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to
a. Plaintiff's claims that Defendant discriminated against her by failing to promote her to the CJO Director position;
b. Plaintiff's hostile work environment discrimination claims;
c. Plaintiff's claims that Defendant retaliated against her by failing to promote her to the CJO Director position;
d. Plaintiff's claim that Defendant retaliated against her by issuing Employee Violation Reports in violation of § 1981; and
e. Plaintiff's retaliatory hostile work environment claim under § 1981;
3. Defendant's Motion is DENIED as to
a. Plaintiff's claims that Defendant discriminated against her by failing to promote her to the HSPA position;
b. Plaintiff's claims that Defendant retaliated against her by issuing Employee Violation Reports in violation of Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO; and
c. Plaintiff's retaliatory hostile work environment claims under Title VII, the PHRA and the PFPO.
