LOWENSTEIN v. CATHOLIC HEALTH EAST et al
Filing
16
ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 10/26/2011. 10/27/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________________
SARAH LOWENSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHOLIC HEALTH EAST, ST. MARY
MEDICAL CENTER and CLAIRE
SHANKS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-4689
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants Catholic
East, et al. Motion to Dismiss (in Part) the Complaint (Document No. 6, filed September 26,
2011); and Plaintiff Sarah Lowenstein’s Answer in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dimiss
[sic] in Part (Document No. 13, filed October 14, 2011), for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum dated October 26, 2011, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Catholic East, et al.
Motion to Dismiss (in Part) the Complaint is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, as
follows:
1.
Those parts of defendants’ motion that relate to plaintiff’s claims against
defendant Catholic Health East are GRANTED;
2.
Those parts of defendants’ motion that relate to plaintiff’s withdrawn claims—(1)
plaintiff’s claims against defendant Claire Shanks (“Shanks”) under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), (2) plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages
-1-
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), (3) plaintiff’s claim for
compensatory damages under the anti-retaliation provision of the ADA, and (4)
plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the FMLA—are GRANTED; and
3.
The motion is DENIED in all other respects.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the denial of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, in part,
is without prejudice to defendants’ right to raise the issues presented by motion for summary
judgment or at trial.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jan E. DuBois
JAN E. DUBOIS, J.
1
Remaining for adjudication are (1) plaintiff’s claims against St. Mary Medical Center
(“SMMC”) and Shanks for denial of FMLA benefits and interference with the exercise of FMLA
rights, with the parties agreeing that compensatory damages are not available; (2) claims against
SMMC under the ADA for harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful
termination, with the parties agreeing that compensatory damages are not available as to the
retaliation claim; and (3) claims against SMMC and Shanks under the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act for harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
-2-
]]>
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.
Why Is My Information Online?
