Iyer v. Everson

1 Citing case

  1. 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.