DOE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al, No. 2:2024cv00468 - Document 65 (E.D. Pa. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANT INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSSS MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 44), IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS MOTION IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS II AND V OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ALLEGING THAT INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS VIOLATED TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND THE PHILADELPHIA FAIR PRACTICES ORDINANCE. COUNTS II AND V ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS VII AND VIII OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ALLEGING THAT INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS VIOLATED SECTION 1557 OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/2/24. 8/2/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
DOE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al Doc. 65 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, PHILADELPHIA FIREFIGHTERS’ & PARAMDEICS UNION, I.A.F.F., LOCAL 22 Defendants. NO. 24-0468 ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Independence Blue Cross’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44), Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Response in Opposition (ECF No. 53), Independence Blue Cross’s Reply in Support (ECF No. 59), and Doe’s Surreply (ECF No. 60), it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED with respect to Counts II and V of the Second Amended Complaint, alleging that Independence Blue Cross violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. Counts II and V are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Defendant’s Motion is DENIED with respect to Counts VII and VIII of the Second Amended Complaint, alleging that Independence Blue Cross violated Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. BY THE COURT: /s/Wendy Beetlestone, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J. Dockets.Justia.com

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.