Opinion
Civil Action 21-2828
01-30-2024
RUTH PARKER, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant.
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.
AND NOW, this 30th day of January 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 43), and Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP's Reply (Doc. No. 46), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) in Counts One and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADEA and PHRA in Counts One and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1.)
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and PHRA in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's ADA and PHRA failure to accommodate claim in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
5. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
6. The claims remaining in the case are: (1) Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim under the ADA and PHRA; (2) Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim under the ADA and PHRA; and (3) Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA.