Barron vs baltimore case School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.Schempp definition12/14/2023 ![]() § 1983, nor for retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, or the PHRA, so the motion will be granted as uncontested as to these claims. Plaintiff does not contest the motion as it pertains to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.ĭefendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed and is ripe for the Court’s review. And finally, Plaintiff brings a claim against all Defendants for violations of various constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. He also asserts a claim against Manfredi and Wehmeyer for aiding and abetting under the PHRA. ![]() § 2000e et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (the “PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 621, et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. Plaintiff’s claims against the Township are brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. Plaintiff Kevin Barron brings this action against Defendants Abington Township (the “Township”), Richard Manfredi, and Tara Wehmeyer alleging discrimination, retaliation, and violations of his constitutional rights arising from Plaintiff’s termination from the Township’s employ. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN BARRON, : CIVIL ACTION : NO.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |