Daniel Bentz, Esquire of Marks O’Neill’s Pittsburgh office recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, a municipal contractor, who was tasked with performing building inspections and issuing construction permits on behalf of the township. The Court granted summary judgment, agreeing that our client was immune from suit, as a matter of law, pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§8541-8542.

J. Mark Pecci, II of Marks O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in having Motion for Summary Judgment granted in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Defendant for an alleged slip and fall on ice and snow while at an apartment complex. Depositions revealed that Plaintiff fell not on the sidewalk as alleged in her Complaint, but on the back patio of the apartment. Summary Judgment argued that the patio where Plaintiff fell was not a common area and would not have been the responsibility of the apartment staff and/or an outside contractor and thus Defendants cannot be liable to Plaintiff. The trial court agreed and dismissed all claims against Defendant. 

Patricia Fecile-Moreland of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of their client in a wrongful termination case brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (PWL). The case centered around the plaintiff’s contention that her former employer fired her on the basis of her meeting with government investigators regarding her employer’s internal operations, and on the basis of certain complaints of unlawful activity she allegedly lodged during her employment. The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that plaintiff failed to establish that she had actually lodged any protected complaints under the PWL, and that she had further failed to show that her termination was actually caused by any protected activity under the PWL in which she allegedly engaged. Ultimately, the Court agreed that plaintiff had failed to establish the requisite causation between her alleged protected activity and her termination, and summary judgment was awarded in favor of our client as a result.

Patricia Fecile-Moreland of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office was successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of their client in an age discrimination case brought pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that our client, an assisted living and long-term care facility, had produced sufficient evidence that the plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and that the plaintiff could not establish that this reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The Court agreed that the plaintiff was unable to establish that our client’s reason for terminating her employment was pretextual, and granted summary judgment in favor of our client as a result.