Summary
holding that plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of retaliation under Title VII because allegation appearing in her response to defendants' motion to dismiss did not appear in her complaint
Summary of this case from United States ex rel. Budike v. Peco EnergyOpinion
NO. 11-275
08-22-2011
SHEILA BURGESS-WALLS, Plaintiff, v. BROWN et al, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
Order
AND NOW, this 22nd day of August 2011, upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss (Document No. 3) and plaintiff's brief in opposition to the motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
(1) defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Count I as to the Title VII claims of retaliation against the City, but the remainder of the motion as to Count I is GRANTED;
(2) defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Count II;
(3) defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to COUNT III as to the PHRA claim of retaliation occurring in November 2009 against the City, but the remainder of the motion as to Count III is GRANTED;
(4) defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Count IV; and
(5) Lieutenant Richard Brown is DISMISSED as a party to this action.
William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge