Iyer v. Everson

14 Citing cases

  1. Quintana-Dieppa v. Dep't of Army

    Civil No. 19-1277 (ADC) (D.P.R. Mar. 25, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Section 1346(a)(2), known as the "Little Tucker Act", confers concurrent jurisdiction in district court and the Claims Court for civil actions against the United States not exceeding $10,000 in amount. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. Β§ 1346(a)(2)); see also Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 759 (E.D. Penn. 2005). The Court of Federal Claims, however, has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims under EPA exceeding $10,000.

  2. Bleiler v. Doylestown Hosp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2308 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2015)

    In short, Bleiler has failed to identify any evidence that Hall and Sparks knew about his sexual harassment claim when they took adverse action against him. Indeed, the evidence in this record indicates that they did not know. Bleiler has therefore failed to establish the necessary causal link between any adverse action and protected activity. It is axiomatic that there can be no retaliation without knowledge. The cases demonstrating this principle are legion. See, e.g., Krouse, 126 F.3d at 505; Carter v. AT&T Broadband/Comcast, No. 06-22, 2008 WL 4137972, at *15 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2008); Fullman v. Potter, 480 F. Supp. 2d 782, 791 (E.D. Pa. 2007); Doe, 2007 WL 1074206, at *9; Dollar Bank, 2006 WL 895089, at *6; Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005); Perpepchuk, 2000 WL 1372876, at *7; Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 19 F. Supp. 2d 414, 421 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Bleiler's retaliation claims.

  3. Susko v. Weidenhammer Sys. Corp.

    No. 5:20-cv-06543 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 16, 2021)

    To do this, Susko must first assert that the relevant actor at Weidenhammer knew about her protected conduct before she was fired on September 19, 2018. Seybert v. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. CIV.A. 07-3333, 2009 WL 722291, at *24 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Iver v. Everson, 382 F.Supp.2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005)). The Third Circuit has expressly recognized the requirement of knowledge by the decision-maker in retaliation cases.

  4. Grounds v. United States

    No. 3:17-cv-01190-HZ (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    amount in controversy); Ashbourne v. Geithner, No. CIV.A. RWT-11-2818, 2012 WL 2874012, at *4 (D. Md. July 12, 2012), aff'd, 491 F. App'x 429 (4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing EPA claim for lack of jurisdiction where the claim exceeded $10,000); Scott v. McHugh, No. 5:10CV00184 SWW, 2011 WL 1464853, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 15, 2011) (dismissing EPA claim where the plaintiff did not provide an "unequivocal limitation of her damages to $10,000.00 which would allow the Court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction); Moorehead v. Chertoff, No. C05-1767JLR, 2007 WL 737370, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2007) (acknowledging that the Ninth Circuit has not decided this precise jurisdictional question but transferring plaintiff's EPA claim to the Court of Federal Claims based on the rationale of prior cases and the plain language of 28 U.S.C. Β§ 1346); Bolden v. Ashcroft, 515 F. Supp. 2d 127, 136 (D.D.C. 2007) (dismissing claim for lack of jurisdiction because it far exceeded "the $10,000 limit); Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 759 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff'd, 238 F. App'x 834 (3d Cir. 2007) (dismissing plaintiff's EPA claim for lack of jurisdiction because it exceeded $10,000). This Court's cursory search of cases from the Court of Federal Claims found at least 40 cases in which the Court of Federal Claims decided Equal Pay Act cases in the last 10 years, including at least six in 2018 and 2019.

  5. Cooper v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-5587 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2017)

    Thus, she was not qualified to be a nurse at Jefferson when she was terminated.See Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (employee failed to show he was qualified for position that required an LLM in taxation, where he had neither completed nor was enrolled in LLM program in taxation); cf. Fiorentini v. William Penn Sch. Dist., 150 F. Supp. 3d 559, 567-68 (E.D. Pa.) (furloughed employee failed to make out prima facie case of age discrimination where those hired back had elementary teaching certifications, required for the positions, that employee lacked), aff'd, 665 F. App'x 229 (3d Cir. 2016). The record does not reflect how Jefferson defines a business day. If the calculation excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and the federal holiday celebrating Veteran's Day, November 11, 2015, ten business days following October 31 is November 16, 2015.

  6. De La Torre v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    Civil No. 13-127 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. Jun. 30, 2014)   Cited 3 times

    As an initial matter, the parties have identified a matter of disagreement in connection with the third element of a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote, which requires that another, not in the protected class, was treated more favorably by the employer. Certain courts within this circuit have described a fourth element in failure to promote claims, which requires a plaintiff to show that "the employer continued to seek out individuals with qualifications similar to . . . [the plaintiff's] . . . to fill the position," Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d. 749, 756 (E.D. Pa. 2005), or that "the person who filled the desired position had equivalent or lesser qualifications," Gilmore v. Macys Retail Holdings, Inc., 385 F. App'x 233, 237 (3d Cir. 2010). Thus, Lockheed argues that Plaintiff must show that her qualifications were at least equal to each successful candidate.

  7. Bell v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    Civil No. 08-6292 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. Jun. 27, 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that "New Jersey courts 'have frequently looked to case law under Title VII . . . for guidance in developing standards to govern the resolution of [NJLAD] claims'" and citing but-for test in the context of a retaliation claim under the NJLAD (quoting Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 915 A.2d 518, 528 (N.J. 2007)) (citing Nassar, 133 S. Ct. at 2534)

    Certain courts within this circuit have described a fourth element in failure to promote claims, which requires a plaintiff to show that "the employer continued to seek out individuals with qualifications similar to [the plaintiff's] to fill the position," or that "the person who filled the desired position had equivalent or lesser qualifications." See Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d. 749, 756 (E.D. Pa. 2005); Gilmore v. Macys Retail Holdings, Inc., 385 F. App'x 233, 237 (3d Cir. 2010). Thus, Lockheed argues that Plaintiff must show that her qualifications were at least equal to each successful candidate.

  8. Trent v. Test Am., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1290 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2013)

    See Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Further, to prove the requisite causal connection, plaintiff must be able to show that TestAmerica had knowledge of her protected conduct when it decided to discontinue its relationship with her. See Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005) aff'd, 238 F. App'x 834 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that the defendant was actually aware of his EEO complaints). TestAmerica contends that plaintiff cannot establish the requisite causal link because it did not receive a copy or other notice of plaintiff's EEOC charge until August 19, 2009, well after it ended its relationship with her. Dkt. No. 56 at ΒΆ 84. Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence to rebut TestAmerica's contention that it did not have notice of her EEOC filing at the time of her termination.

  9. Seybert v. International Group, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-3333 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that "a reasonable person would not believe that . . . one instance" of allegedly discriminatory conduct would be sufficient for a Title VII retaliation claim

    For Ms. Seybert to show a causal connection between Title VII protected conduct and an adverse employment action, she must be able to show that the relevant actors at IGI had knowledge of her protected conduct. Iver v. Everson, 382 F Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005). The evidence suggests that Ken Reucassel spoke to Mr. Marchand concerning Ms. Seybert's initial complaint about Mr. Marchand's staring at her breasts. It also suggests that both Ken Reucassel and Ms. Meilke talked to Mr. Marchand about Ms. Seybert's complaint concerning the sexual comment at the Recognition Dinner. Taken together, the evidence is sufficient to support a causal link between Ms. Seybert's protected conduct and Mr. Marchand's harassment.

  10. Gaddy v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-04570 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 28, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted "[a]lthough he need not establish" non-Native Americans were rehired after criminal charges, "he must establish some causal nexus between his membership in a protected class and the decision not to rehire him." Id.; accord Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 757 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2005) (Brody, J.) (plaintiff did not present evidence employer treated him less favorably and did not establish a causal nexus between his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the employment action). Gaddy claims she was treated differently than Caucasian and Hispanic males, citing Smith as an example.