HANAFY v. HILL INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 2:2022cv00878 - Document 35 (E.D. Pa. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/19/23. 4/19/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
HANAFY v. HILL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Doc. 35 Case 2:22-cv-00878-WB Document 35 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHADY HANAFY, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. HILL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. NO. 22-878 ORDER AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 25, 29) and Plaintiff’s response thereto (ECF No. 28), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. With respect to Count I (pursuant to the ADA): a. Summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim. b. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims. 2. With respect to Count II (pursuant to the FMLA): a. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to both Plaintiff’s interference and retaliation claims. 3. With respect to Count III (pursuant to the ADEA): a. Summary judgment is DENIED. 4. With respect to Count IV (pursuant to Title VII): a. Summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim. b. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00878-WB Document 35 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 2 5. With respect to Count V (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981): a. Summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim. b. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. 6. With respect to Count VI (pursuant to the PHRA): a. Summary judgment is DENIED to the extent Plaintiff’s PHRA claim is predicated on the same theories underlying Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claims pursuant to the ADA, ADEA, Title VII, and Section 1981. b. Summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff’s PHRA claim is predicated on the same theories underlying Plaintiff’s hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and FMLA interference claims. BY THE COURT: /S/Wendy Beetlestone, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, 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.