Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

07-180 - AGOSTINI v. FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HILLS et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
07-180 - AGOSTINI v. FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HILLS et al
July 24, 2007
PDF | More
ORDER granting 5 Motion for More Definite Statement, as fully stated in Memorandum Order. Plaintiff shall amend her Complaint curing the deficiencies noted in this Order on or before 8/22/2007. Signed by Judge Amy Reynolds Hay on 7/24/2007.(klh)
March 3, 2008
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's Motion for leave to Amend Complaint 21 be granted, and that the motion to dismiss submitted on behalf of defendants 18, as it pertains to the Second Amended Complaint, be granted in part and denied in part. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amy Reynolds Hay on 2/29/2008. (dgg)
March 26, 2008
PDF | More
stile work environment under Title VII, the ADEA and the PHRA, defendants' motion is denied as it appears that at least one act contributing to the alleged hostile environment occurred within the relevant limitation periods. Similarly, with resORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting 21 Motion to Amend Complaint; adopting Report and Recommendations re 24 Report and Recommendations. The motion to dismiss submitted on behalf of defendants [Dkt. 18], as it pertains to the Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendants' motion is granted to the extent that plaintiff seeks to raise claims under Title VII and the ADEA based on discrete acts of discrimination occurring prior to November 5, 2004, and to the extent she has raised claims under the PHRA for discrete acts of discrimination that occurred prior to March 5, 2005, as they are untimely. With respect to plaintiff's claims of gender based hopect to plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment based on age, plaintiffs claims brought under Title VII and the ADEA are timely and, thus, defendants' motion in this regard is denied. Plaintiff, however, has failed to allege any acts that contributed to a hostile work environment based on her age that occurred after March 5, 2005, and, thus, defendants' motion is granted as to plaintiff's age based hostile work environment claims brought pursuant to the PHRA. Finally, because plaintiff has abandoned her claim for compensatory damages under the ADEA and her claim for punitive damages under the PHRA in the Second Amended Complaint, to the extent that defendants seek to have those claims dismissed, defendants' motion is dismissed as moot. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 3/24/08. (smc )