Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180327_0000712.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:45:30+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Murray v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co.
Murray v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co.
PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE CO. et al., Defendants.
Joan Murray sued her former employer, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 et seq. (2001). Murray also asserts a claim for aiding and abetting under the PHRA against PMA employees Patricia Brookey and Kyleen Hastie. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Mot., ECF No. 16) to which Murray responded (Pl's Resp. in Opp., ECF No. 19). PMA filed a Reply in support of its Motion. (Reply, ECF No. 22.) The Court heard oral argument on March 15, 2018. (ECF No. 25.) After considering the parties' positions and thoroughly reviewing the record, the Court granted the Motion and entered judgment for the Defendants. (ECF No. 26.) This Memorandum explains the Court's decision.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smathers v. Multi-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Emp. Health & Welfare Plan, 298 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party will not suffice; there must be evidence by which a jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Id. at 252. Summary judgment is appropriate where “the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
In reviewing the record, a court “must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor.” Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, 579 F.3d 285, 286 (3d Cir. 2009). The court may not, however, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in considering motions for summary judgment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Goodman v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'n, 293 F.3d 655, 665 (3d Cir. 2002).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 12101
 § 951
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.