Opinion ID: 3021517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligent Supervision and Retention and Civil

Text: Conspiracy Petruska’s negligent supervision and retention claim and her civil conspiracy claim flow directly from her Title VII allegations. Civil conspiracy requires proof that two or more persons combined to do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means. See, e.g., Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198, 211 (Pa. 1979). Here, the underlying unlawful acts are the very violations of Title VII discussed in the previous sections. Likewise, Petruska’s negligent supervision and retention claim flows from her Title VII allegations: She claims that 44 See Christidis v. First Pennsylvania Mortg. Trust, 717 F.2d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1983) (stating that the requirements of Rule 9(b) “appl[y] not only to fraud actions under federal statutes, but to fraud claims based on state law.”). 58 Gannon negligently supervised and retained the employees who discriminated against her. Gannon has not asserted a reason for the retention of these employees that is grounded in faith, doctrine, or internal regulation. As a corollary to our conclusion that Petruska must be allowed to proceed with her Title VII claims, we hold that at this stage the First Amendment does not foreclose her conspiracy and negligent supervision and retention claims. We therefore reverse the District Court’s dismissal of these claims.