PARKER v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, No. 2:2021cv02828 - Document 51 (E.D. Pa. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 41 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 1/30/24. 1/30/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
PARKER v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP Doc. 51 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RUTH PARKER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-2828 v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of January 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 43), and Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Reply (Doc. No. 46), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) in Counts One and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADEA and PHRA in Counts One and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and PHRA in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). 4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s ADA and PHRA failure to accommodate claim in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). 5. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). 6. The claims remaining in the case are: (1) Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the ADA and PHRA; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim under the ADA and PHRA; and (3) Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joel H. Slomsky JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.