IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 :

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 :

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER OPPOSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U. S. C. §1292(b)

Plaintiff answers and opposes Defendants' application to certify its newly stated issue for 

interlocutory review by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the following reasons: 

1. Admitted that this Honorable Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Count I of 

the Plaintiff's Complaint by Memorandum and Order of August 19, 2003. 

2. Denied. On the contrary, the purpose of defendants' motion is to invent a new issue for 

purposes of interlocutory appeal, an issue it never raised in its motion to dismiss or 

memorandum of law. The only basis on which defendants sought dismissal of Count I of 

Plaintiff's Complaint was whether the state Equal Rights Amendment required state action. The 

issue defendants now seek to certify was not raised. It was never considered by this Honorable 

Court. It is not a "controlling issue of law" and is therefore not properly raised on appeal. 

3. Denied. Defendants seek to delay and prolong proceedings in this Court by seeking 

interlocutory appeal on a new theory not argued in its motion to dismiss. Defendants are free to 

raise this issue in a motion for summary judgment but may not invent a new issue for purposes of 

interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) does not permit such manipulation. 

1 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 7 Filed 09/10/2003 Page 1 of 3
4. Denied. On the contrary, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined there is no 

requirement of state action under the PERA, and the August 19, 2003 decision of this Honorable 

Court did not "create" a cause of action. On the contrary, this Honorable Court merely 

determined that Plaintiff is not required to establish "state action" in order to state a valid claim

under the PERA, which was the only basis for defendants' motion to dismiss. 

5. and 6. Denied. Pennsylvania's General Assembly cannot alter the Pennsylvania 

Constitution by purporting to define its terms in a manner inconsistent with judicial construction. 

PERA is a Constitutional Amendment adopted by the Commonwealth as part of its own organic 

law. The Constitution cannot be limited by any statute created by the legislature. 

7. Denied. No "new cause of action" has been "created." The arguments raised in this 

paragraph were not include in defendants' motion to dismiss and cannot be considered by the 

Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Further, the legislature's intent in 1955 in enacting the PHRA 

cannot abridge or deny rights confirmed by subsequent organic Constitutional law. 

8. Denied. Defendants have demonstrated nothing entitling them to certification of a new 

issue for purposes of immediate interlocutory appeal. There are no "exceptional circumstances" 

in this case other than defendants' exceptional fear of legal accountability for their unlawful 

persecution of Plaintiff because of her sex, female. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants' application for certification of interlocutory appeal should be 

denied. Respectfully submitted, 

 

 ___________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire ID # 28086 

 The Atrium Suite 2 West 

 301 South Main Street 

 Doylestown PA 18901 

 (215) 340-0700 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

2 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 7 Filed 09/10/2003 Page 2 of 3
3 

 

 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 7 Filed 09/10/2003 Page 3 of 3