Edward Dumbauld

This case involved two consolidated claims of sex discrimination under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)) by Katerina Levendos and her mother Elizabeth Levendos against their former employer, a restaurant operator. Katerina alleged she was fired on fabricated grounds after an incident involving customer complaints, while Elizabeth claimed she was forced to resign due to exclusion from meetings, loss of authority, false accusations of theft, and other adverse conditions. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Katerina on liability, determining that the employer's stated reasons were pretextual and lacked credibility, but ruled for the defendant against Elizabeth, concluding that the working conditions were not intolerable enough to establish constructive discharge and that she had not given management an opportunity to remedy issues before resigning. The rulings applied precedents such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co. to evaluate the evidence of discriminatory intent and the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' actions.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act arose from a serious injury to plaintiff H. Cree Collins on January 13, 1983, leading to a complaint filed on January 10, 1985, naming the United States Department of the Army and its Corps of Engineers as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was barred because a May 3, 1983, letter from plaintiffs' counsel to the Army Corps of Engineers did not constitute proper presentment of the claim to the appropriate federal agency under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), and that the named agencies could not be sued in their own names. The court denied the motion, holding that the letter sufficiently presented the claim by identifying the incident, describing the serious injuries, notifying the agency of retained counsel and an intent to investigate, and requesting the agency's report, thereby satisfying the jurisdictional prerequisite even without a specific damage amount or use of Standard Form 95. The court also permitted amendment to clarify that the suit was against the United States and noted in dictum that admiralty jurisdiction might alternatively apply but was superseded by the FTCA remedy.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case concerns whether Pennsylvania education officials provided Lindy Sue Grkman, a deaf minor, with a free appropriate public education under federal law, following an earlier district court ruling that was remanded after the Supreme Court's decision in Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education. On remand, the district court applied the Rowley standard, which defines a free appropriate public education as specially designed personalized instruction with sufficient supportive services to allow the child to benefit educationally, provided at public expense and meeting state standards in conformity with an individualized education program. The court found the prior IEP obsolete and remanded the matter to the Secretary of Education to develop an updated factual record, conduct a current evaluation, and compare available educational alternatives under the new legal criteria, while noting the possibility of issues capable of repetition yet evading review. The decision emphasizes that education needs change over time and that state authorities should first assess facts in light of Rowley before any further judicial review.

civil rights

The case involves William B. Ursic suing his employer Bethlehem Mines and related pension plan entities under ERISA § 510 (29 U.S.C. 1140) for discharging him to prevent his pension from vesting after nearly 30 years of service. The court found after a non-jury trial that the discharge, purportedly for removing company tools without permission, was a pretext contrived to interfere with his attainment of pension rights, as shown by his strong work record, the company's awareness of his planned retirement, lax enforcement of tool policies, and the timing of surveillance. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff awarding stipulated damages of $59,765.54 plus future monthly pension payments and reasonable attorney fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g).

labor & employment

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act concerned injuries to pedestrian Henry F. Reuter from a collision with a U.S. Air Corps vehicle in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, along with his wife's claim for loss of consortium. The court applied Pennsylvania tort law on pedestrian right-of-way at crosswalks, comparative negligence, no-fault offsets, and damage calculations, concluding that the government driver was negligent while the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent and that the accident caused permanent disability affecting his business earnings. It awarded $250,000 to Reuter (capped by the prior administrative claim) and $45,000 to his wife after deducting benefits and compensation received. The ruling rested on findings of fact from trial evidence regarding the incident, medical causation, and economic losses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to collect a $1,000 civil penalty from Thompson Bros. Coal Co. for violating a regulation under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act by discharging mine drainage into a stream without using a required sedimentation pond. The defendant admitted the violation but argued that the Act's requirement to prepay the proposed penalty into escrow before contesting it violated due process and equal protection. The court upheld the provision's constitutionality, finding that operators have access to full evidentiary hearings and informal conferences without prepayment, that the requirement reasonably deters frivolous delays, and that any temporary financial burden is minimal and offset by interest on refunds. It also rejected the equal protection claim, noting the statute applies uniformly and that any disparity arises from market conditions rather than statutory classification, satisfying rational basis review.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to an administrative decision by Pennsylvania education officials directing that Lindy Sue Grkman, an eight-year-old profoundly deaf but intellectually gifted child, be placed in a public intermediate unit class for the 1979-80 school year rather than continuing at the private De Paul Institute. Under the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act, states accepting federal funds must provide a free appropriate public education, with procedural safeguards including due process hearings and judicial review. The court explained that review is de novo on the preponderance of the evidence, requiring it to determine independently what placement constitutes an appropriate education after considering the administrative record and additional testimony.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Jones v. Carborundum Co., an employee injured by a shattering grinding wheel sued the wheel and machine manufacturers for negligence, strict liability under Restatement § 402-A, and breach of warranty after receiving workers' compensation from his employer WABCO. The defendants moved to join WABCO as an involuntary plaintiff, arguing that its negligence in removing or failing to require wheel guards made it partly or solely responsible and that subrogation under 77 P.S. 671 would allow unjust recoupment. The court denied the motion, holding that Pennsylvania's workers' compensation statute (77 P.S. 481) bars any recovery against the employer and prevents it from being a party against whom recovery is sought under the comparative negligence law (42 Pa.C.S.A. 7102), while the employer's subrogation rights operate independently of joinder. The decision rests on the statutory bargain exempting employers from tort liability in exchange for no-fault compensation and on policy favoring reduced employer litigation costs.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Fontana, the defendant had been sentenced on a federal drug charge to three years' imprisonment with most of the term suspended and three years of probation, which was set to expire in March 1980. While on probation, he committed a state drug offense, leading the probation office to extend his federal probation term at his own request before expiration; after his state conviction, the court held revocation hearings and imposed a new sentence of three years with 60 days to serve and one year of probation. The defendant challenged the revocation on the ground that the original probation term had expired before extension and revocation. The court upheld the revocation, reasoning that 18 U.S.C. § 3653 permits revocation for violations committed during the probation period even after the term ends (provided the five-year statutory maximum is observed), that the extension occurred at the defendant's election, and that the required Gagnon hearings had been conducted with counsel present.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Swedish national who worked for international subsidiaries of PPG Industries and sought a declaratory judgment regarding his rights under the company's ERISA-governed pension plan, specifically whether his salary paid in Swiss francs at a fixed exchange rate would affect pension calculations and related tax withholding obligations. The court addressed the employer's motion to dismiss several counts of the complaint. It denied dismissal of the count concerning the salary payment agreement, finding it founded on a written instrument subject to a six-year statute of limitations rather than four years. It granted dismissal of the count seeking to apply the franc-based salary to pension benefits, reasoning that the salary agreement applied only to base pay and not to the plan's definition of monthly salary for benefit computations. The court also rejected the primary jurisdiction defense under ERISA for the remaining counts, holding that the dispute involved straightforward legal interpretation of documents suitable for judicial resolution, and denied dismissal of counts related to tax withholding functions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involved a former employee who sued her employer, union, and individual officials under Title VII for sex discrimination during her prior employment, illegal discharge, and later retaliatory refusal to rehire after she filed an EEOC charge. The court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims covered by the 1977 EEOC predetermination settlement, which released matters that were or could have been alleged in the first charge in exchange for an $8,000 payment (reduced by deductions), and dismissed the individual defendants for lack of service or inclusion. It reasoned that Congress's policy favoring informal EEOC conciliation and voluntary settlements precludes relitigation of settled issues, that the new sex discrimination allegations were not properly presented to the EEOC and thus outside the court's jurisdiction, and that the settlement was valid absent specific proof of noncompliance. The court permitted amendment to pursue only the retaliation claim from the second EEOC charge under proper jurisdictional statutes and limited future discovery accordingly.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over the sale of a used towboat under the Uniform Commercial Code, where the seller sued to collect on an unpaid promissory note after the buyer took possession, used the vessel, and then attempted to rescind based on a statement in the bill of sale describing the vessel as operative and safe. The court granted summary judgment to the seller, holding that the buyer was obligated to pay the note and could not revoke acceptance. The core reasoning was that the seller's statement about the vessel's condition was merely an expression of opinion, not a warranty, as shown by the parties' use of explicit warranty language elsewhere in the contract and by UCC rules distinguishing opinions from warranties; the buyer had also accepted the vessel through actions inconsistent with the seller's ownership. The court rejected claims for attorney fees under the contract because the buyer had not failed to honor the note due to inability but had instead sought rescission beforehand.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Analytichem International, Inc., as exclusive licensee, against Har-Len Associates, Inc. The court addressed two unrelated motions: the plaintiff's motion under Rule 12(f) to strike the defendant's affirmative defense of unclean hands, and the defendant's motion under Rule 56 for summary judgment based on patent misuse. The court denied both motions, reasoning that the unclean hands defense could potentially be supported by evidence of a conspiracy to interfere with the defendant's business relationships, and that any patent misuse through attempts to extend the monopoly beyond its scope might or might not have been dissipated, requiring further factual development through discovery. The opinion emphasizes that such issues are not suitable for resolution as a matter of law at this preliminary stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a nurse discharged from her position at a county-operated nursing home who sued county commissioners, a union and its officers, the acting administrator, and coworkers, alleging they conspired to terminate her without a hearing, damage her reputation and employment prospects, and violate her due process, equal protection, privacy, and other civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986. The court addressed a motion to dismiss by assuming the complaint's allegations as true and examining whether they stated a federal claim. It decided to dismiss the action, reasoning that §§ 1981 and 1982 apply only to racial discrimination, § 1985 requires racial or class-based invidious animus which was not alleged, no equal protection violation existed, and the facts did not support the other statutory claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute in bankruptcy proceedings over whether Zimmermann & Jansen (ZJ) held a perfected security interest in machinery and equipment owned by the bankrupt Bollinger Corporation. Bollinger had originally borrowed from Industrial Credit Company (ICC) under a secured note and financing statement; later, ZJ refinanced the debt, paid off the remaining balance to ICC, and received an assignment of the security agreement along with a new note. The bankruptcy court had ruled against ZJ's secured status for the full amount, but the district court reversed, holding that ZJ was a secured creditor entitled to priority for the unpaid balance on its note. The court reasoned that the assignment of the perfected security interest required no new filing under the Uniform Commercial Code, and the language of the new note expressly secured it by the assigned collateral without limiting protection to the original ICC debt amount.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Flucker v. Fox Chapel Area School District, a female English teacher sued the school district under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex discrimination after a male applicant was hired for a vacancy at O’Hara Junior High instead of her. The court entered judgment for the defendant school district and against the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had to prove the decision was motivated by sex rather than other factors such as qualifications or familiarity with her prior performance as a substitute, that all three selectors independently ranked the male candidate first without any shown pattern of anti-female bias in the district, and that federal courts do not oversee routine personnel decisions by public agencies absent clear discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds suing employer Lawrence Overly to recover unpaid royalties and related amounts owed under the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1971, a collective bargaining agreement requiring contributions to the fund based on coal production. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $33,877.38, consisting of $25,493.30 in royalties, interest, and $2,500 in attorney's fees, after accepting an audit of the defendant's operations. The core reasoning was that the defendant was bound by the standard written contract he signed, which covered all coal lands and required monthly statements and record access; any claimed oral or unilateral limitation was invalid as the fund is a separate fiduciary entity and third-party beneficiary whose rights cannot be altered by uncommunicated modifications, and contract law applies an objective standard to signed agreements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved trustees of a pension fund seeking a declaratory judgment on whether four former employees of Polar Water Co. who resigned from their unions in 1975 qualified for pension benefits under the fund's trust agreements, which were governed by 29 U.S.C. 186(c)(5) and later amended for ERISA compliance. The court granted summary judgment for three defendants (Eich, Irr, and Baker), finding their work as driver-salesmen and similar roles fell within covered classifications in the collective bargaining agreements with Teamsters-affiliated locals, making them eligible based on the definitions of 'Employee' in the plans. For the fourth defendant (Conte), whose supervisory role did not qualify under the post-1976 agreement, the court denied eligibility but ordered the return of pre-1976 employer contributions with interest, as payments into the fund were conclusive as to status under the original trust terms. The decision rested on stipulations, affidavits, and contract language specifying that eligibility depended on primary occupations in bargaining unit classifications rather than union membership alone.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff in a private antitrust lawsuit under 15 U.S.C. § 15. The court applied the Lindy Bros. criteria, starting with the lodestar (basic time charge) and considering adjustments for contingency and work quality, while rejecting defendants' attempts to exclude certain services such as work on retrials, appeals, certiorari petitions, and computer research costs. The reasoning emphasizes that the statutory fee should compensate for all services that competent counsel would reasonably perform, ensuring a fair rather than minimal award, without penalizing thorough preparation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an antitrust treble-damages action under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 15 in which the Court of Appeals had previously found insufficient proof of damages from price-fixing, exclusive dealing, and full-line forcing but remanded for determination of damages on the territoriality count. On remand, the district court examined whether that mandate was consistent with the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., which overruled the per se rule of United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. and held that non-price vertical restrictions are to be judged under the rule of reason based on demonstrable economic effects rather than the passage of title. The court concluded that the appellate mandate and Continental T.V. are not in conflict, so the law-of-the-case doctrine does not yield and retrial on the territoriality damages may proceed under the original remand instructions.

business & regulatory