From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. C.A.R.S

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Sep 9, 2008
543 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2008)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming the district court's grant of a motion to proceed anonymously “[after a careful review of all the circumstances of th[e] case.”

Summary of this case from Doe v. United States
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 06-3625, 06-4508.

September 9, 2008.

WD/PA Civil No. 01-cv-02352, District Judge: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

Gary M. Davis, Pittsburgh, PA, for Jane Doe.

C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., Murrysville, PA, pro se.

Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and McCLURE, District Judge.

Honorable James F. McClure, Jr., District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

ORDER

MARJORIE O. RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

The panel recently entered three orders in connection with this appeal: the order vacating the grant of summary judgment, remanding the case to the District Court; an order granting a motion "to proceed under seal and in pseudonym"; and an order denying intervention sought by several publications desirous of challenging the sealing of the case, in which we stated "movant may pursue this matter with the District Court upon remand". We believe we should clarify the scope of the remand regarding the sealing order. It is not our intention that the order we entered sealing the record on appeal would prevent the District Court from considering this issue anew; indeed, our order suggesting further pursuit of this issue was intended to reflect our view that the District Court was the better court in which this issue could be litigated, since it could hold a hearing, and had done so previously on this very issue at the outset of the case, and since the record on appeal consists in large measure of the record made in the District Court. The issue of the propriety of the continued sealing of the case now that it will proceed to trial is an important one; the District Court should feel free to decide this issue unfettered by our rulings to date.

Judge Nygaard declines to join this order because it was not requested by either party and because he considers it unnecessary.

Summaries of

Doe v. C.A.R.S

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Sep 9, 2008
543 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2008)

affirming the district court's grant of a motion to proceed anonymously “[after a careful review of all the circumstances of th[e] case.”

Summary of this case from Doe v. United States

reversing grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment where testimony created "genuine issues of material fact" of whether the defendant's "asserted reasons for discharging her [were] pretext"

Summary of this case from Wright v. Providence Care Ctr., LLC

observing that "stray remarks by decision-makers, which were unrelated to the decision-making process ... could provide background evidence that may be critical to a jury's determination of whether the decision-maker was more likely than not acting out of a discriminatory motive"

Summary of this case from Briggs v. Temple Univ.

observing that "stray remarks by decision-makers, which were unrelated to the decision-making process . . . could provide background evidence that may be critical to a jury's determination of whether the decision-maker was more likely than not acting out of a discriminatory motive"

Summary of this case from Franckowiak v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

noting that, for purposes of demonstrating the fourth element of a prima facie employment discrimination case, “[t]he evidence most often used to establish this nexus [between the plaintiff's protected status and the adverse employment action] is that of disparate treatment, whereby a plaintiff shows that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in plaintiff's protected class”

Summary of this case from Gilson v. Pa. State Police
Case details for

Doe v. C.A.R.S

Case Details

Full title:Jane DOE, Appellant at No. 06-3625 v. C.A.R.S PROTECTION PLUS, INC.; Fred…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Sep 9, 2008

Citations

543 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Wright v. Providence Care Ctr., LLC

Again, that asks if she has raised a genuine issue of material fact calling into question whether…

Wagenhoffer v. Visionquest Nat'l Ltd.

VisionQuest must demonstrate that "even if all of the inferences which could reasonably be drawn from the…

24 Citing Cases