Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Ctr.

5 Citing cases

  1. VU v. Kott

    Civil 5:23-cv-03336-JMG (E.D. Pa. May. 31, 2024)

    For starters, non-probationary, permanent police officers are not similarly situated compared to probationary officers as they are “held to differing standards [and] other mitigating factors [] distinguish the manner in which an employer treated them.” Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Ctr., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35112, at *15 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2020). Further, there are no allegations in the Amended Complaint that any other probationary police officers violated the same policies, were found to have been dishonest, or faced similar situations.

  2. Bey v. Pocono Med. Ctr.

    Civil Action 3:23-cv-688 (M.D. Pa. May. 2, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    In determining whether a plaintiff and his comparators are similarly situated, courts consider whether there is a showing that the employees dealt with the same supervisors and decision-makers, were subject to the same standards, held the same job responsibilities, and “had engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them.” Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Ctr., 2020 WL 996915, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2020) (quoting Opsatnik v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 335 Fed. App'x. 220, 223); Wilcher v. Postmaster Gen., 441 Fed. App'x 879, 882 (3d Cir. 2011). However, in determining whether employees are “similarly situated,” the Third Circuit has stated that “similarly situated” does not mean identically situated, and “[w]hich factors are relevant is determined by the context of each case...” Opsatnik, 335 Fed. App'x. at 222-223 (3d Cir. 2009).

  3. Tamburello v. City of Allentown

    CIVIL 5:20-cv-06153-JMG (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2022)

    .” (citations omitted)); Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Ctr., No. 18-3514, 2020 WL 996915, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2020) (holding that plaintiff's “status as a permanent employee and [the comparator's] status as a temporary worker demonstrate a meaningful difference between their employment situations”); see also Tent v. Test Am., Inc., No. 10-1290, 2013 WL 1809236, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2013); George v. Wilbur Chocolate Co., Inc., No. 08-cv-03893, 2010 WL 1754477, at *4 n.13 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2010); Prentice v. OfficeMax N. Am., No. 9-5, 2012 WL 898323, at *8 n.10 (D.V.I. Mar. 15, 2012).

  4. Turner v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp.

    2:20-cv-804 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    First, with regard to delayed breaks and not being provided an appropriate space for expressing, Title VII does not require PNC to provide an employee with a time and private location unless the accommodation is provided to non-pregnant employees. See Lampkins, 383 F.Supp.3d at 328-29; Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Center, CIVIL ACTION No. 18-3514, 2020 WL 996915, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2020) (failure to provide accommodation to employee to express milk at work cannot form basis of Title VII claim because she could not show that similarly situated non-breastfeeding employees were treated more favorably than her). In the position that Ms. Turner held, all BSSAs, whether breastfeeding or not, also had their breaks delayed when working with customers.

  5. Rollins v. Lopez

    Case No. 8:19-cv-2336-T-33SPF (M.D. Fla. Jul. 30, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Hicks did not suggest that a plaintiff can establish a claim of pregnancy discrimination simply by pointing out that she did not receive a sufficient accommodation for her breastfeeding. See also Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Ctr., No. CV 18-3514, 2020 WL 996915, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2020)("Ms. Dudhi's claims do not turn on whether she, as a breastfeeding mother, requested and was denied an accommodation. Rather, they turn on whether similarly situated, non-breastfeeding employees were treated more favorably than she was.").