43 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,716 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (1984) Cited 13,840 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"
Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle
429 U.S. 274 (1977) Cited 9,151 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"
Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System
535 U.S. 613 (2002) Cited 2,280 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state that joins in the removal of state-law claims to federal court waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity on those causes of action
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.
809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 3,925 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, not a “proper measure of whether a complaint fails to state a claim”
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
473 U.S. 234 (1985) Cited 2,026 times
Holding that a state's consent to suit in state court does not waive a state's immunity to suit in federal court
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc.
662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 2,270 times
Holding that direct evidence of a conspiracy was lacking where the complaint's allegations did not "specify a time or place that any actual agreement to fix credit terms occurred, [or] ...indicate that any particular individuals or [organizations] made such an agreement"
Moore v. City of Philadelphia
461 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) Cited 1,546 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs statement, complaining about fellow employee's specific comments and made to that employee's supervisor in front of that employee, constitutes protected conduct
Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Center
621 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,023 times
Holding that plaintiff's substantive due process claims were foreclosed where "allegations fit squarely within the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 357,835 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 2000e-3 - Other unlawful employment practices
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 Cited 14,777 times 44 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting retaliation against employees who "oppos[e] any [unlawful] practice"
Section 8521 - Sovereign immunity generally
42 Pa. C.S. § 8521 Cited 951 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming intent to retain Eleventh Amendment immunity against federal court suits
Section 955 - Unlawful discriminatory practices
43 Pa. Stat. § 955 Cited 513 times 3 Legal Analyses
Expressing that section 5 of the PHRA only concerns discrimination by an "employer"
Section 962 - Construction and exclusiveness of remedy
43 Pa. Stat. § 962 Cited 189 times 2 Legal Analyses
Authorizing court to award "any other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate"

Sanabria v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

43 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"

Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"

Holding that a state that joins in the removal of state-law claims to federal court waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity on those causes of action

Holding that a prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, not a “proper measure of whether a complaint fails to state a claim”

Holding that a state's consent to suit in state court does not waive a state's immunity to suit in federal court

Holding that direct evidence of a conspiracy was lacking where the complaint's allegations did not "specify a time or place that any actual agreement to fix credit terms occurred, [or] ...indicate that any particular individuals or [organizations] made such an agreement"

Holding that plaintiffs statement, complaining about fellow employee's specific comments and made to that employee's supervisor in front of that employee, constitutes protected conduct

Holding that plaintiff's substantive due process claims were foreclosed where "allegations fit squarely within the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Prohibiting retaliation against employees who "oppos[e] any [unlawful] practice"

Affirming intent to retain Eleventh Amendment immunity against federal court suits

Expressing that section 5 of the PHRA only concerns discrimination by an "employer"

Authorizing court to award "any other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate"