ZURIK v. WOODRUFF FAMILY SERVICES et al
| LUCINDA A. ZURIK |
| WOODRUFF FAMILY SERVICES and WOODRUFF FUNDING SERVICES |
| 2:2009cv00064 |
| January 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Allegheny |
| Amy Reynolds Hay |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
19
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/1/09. (jlh )
|
|
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 14 MOTION to Dismiss of Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by WOODRUFF FUNDING SERVICES, WOODRUFF FAMILY SERVICES be granted in part and denied in part. Dismissal is proper as to any claim for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) and for any claim for compensatory and punitive damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Amended Complaint states a claim for punitive damages under Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII), that is at least facially plausible and, hence, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage. Objections to R&R due by 11/9/2009.. Signed by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Amy Reynolds Hay on 10/22/2009. (dgg)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
