Theriault v. General

2 Citing cases

  1. Rosser Int'l, Inc. v. Walter P. Moore & Assocs., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-1028 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that "an express written agreement is not required to establish these [joint defense or common interest] privileges under Pennsylvania law," while also recognizing it as best practice to memorialize agreement in writing

    With respect to the challenged hearsay statements attributed to Mr. Hickton, as recounted by Mr. Ashe, the Court understands "that hearsay testimony may be considered by the Court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment if it appears that the testimony can be presented in an admissible form at trial." Theriault v. Dollar Gen., 2:07-CV-227, 2008 WL 2184977 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2008), aff'd,336 F. App'x 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Williams v. Borough of West Chester,891 F.2d 458, 465 n. 12 (3d Cir.1989)). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Mr. Hickton could be made available to testify if this matter ultimately was tried before a jury as he is presently working in the capacity as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania and maintains his office on the fourth floor of this courthouse.

  2. Shaw v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education

    Civil Action No. 07-1183 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2009)   Cited 8 times

    At best, plaintiff has alleged nine instances of gender-based harassment over a period of ten years. The frequency of this alleged discrimination is insufficient. Theriault v. Dollar Gen., No. 07-227, 2008 WL 2184977, at *7 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2008) (finding six incidents of unwelcome comments over a three month period to "fall[] far short of the applicable standard");Calloway v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., No. 98-669, 2000 WL 1251909, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2000) (characterizing over a dozen alleged incidents of "unwelcome conduct and disparaging utterances" made over a period of two months "sporadic");Cooper-Nicholas v. City of Chester, Pa., No. 95-6493, 1997 WL 799443, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 1997) (finding that eight "unprofessional, offensive, and callow" comments made over nineteen months "cannot be considered frequent or chronic"). Based on this record, no reasonable juror could find that plaintiff has established that the alleged harassment and discrimination was severe or pervasive as necessary to prove a claim for a hostile work environment.