United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018-12-17
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA age discrimination; employer motion for summary judgment denied as to the ADEA/PHRA claims by ED Pa (withdrawn ERISA count dismissed); claim-preclusion argument from unemployment-compensation rulings rejected; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
other: result claimant-won records only that the ADEA claim survived summary judgment (every decided block is [triable] or [conceded]); no liability finding
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 — satisfied · triable (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable The court rejects the argument that the discipline policy was misapplied; the triable issue rests on discretionary, possibly differential, enforcement and the retirement note. The only contested prima facie element was qualification, resolved for the plaintiff on his 28-year tenure. | discretionary progressive discipline for cell-phone use, informal warnings available, plus a termination note referring to the employee being close to retirement | First, Julia admits that there is a large discretionary component to his application of the Policy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [20102:20201] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.The evidence consists of a note stating "Term - Jan - on phone - ignored Joe," followed by "Joe thinks he's close to retirement; not sure when retiring").Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21262:21416] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.Temple has produced that photograph, and Plaintiff does not dispute that it is indeed an image of him playing video games on his cell phone.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [2901:3041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.The record reflects that Julia hired Plaintiff for a role in the linen department when Plaintiff was in his late fifties, which seemingly cuts against a bias based on age,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21628:21799] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.To demonstrate pretext, Plaintiff needs to point to some direct or circumstantial evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer's articulated legitimate reason or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer's action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [16845:17185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.Williams' case is far from robust, but Temple asks me to draw far too many inferences adverse to Plaintiff when the prevailing standard requires exactly the opposite.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21944:22110] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.In all other respects, I deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [22181:22251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1. |
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Hiring discharge or employment terms | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | termination at the last step of a progressive-discipline policy | Defendant Temple terminated Plaintiff Berkley Williams on January 22, 2016.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [1141:1216] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1. |
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Age forty or older | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | 61-year-old, oldest employee in the department; age element unchallenged | Plaintiff was 61 years old at the time, the oldest employee in Temple's linen department.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [1217:1306] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1. |