Full text
Monica O’DONNELL, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Superintendent Robert Shannon, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution of Frackville; Jeffrey Chaimpi, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Principal of the State Correctional Institution at Frackville; Robert Collins, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as (Current) Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution of Frackville; Cephus Moore, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Human Resources Representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Monica O’Donnell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Robert Shannon, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution of Frackville; Jeffrey Chaimpi, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Principal of the State Correctional Institution at Frackville; Robert Collins, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as (Current) Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution of Frackville; Cephus Moore, in His Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as Human Resources Representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Gwendolyn T. Mosley, Appellant. (Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 12(a))
JUDGMENT ORDER
MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
On May 16, 2011, the District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, disposing of the majority of Monica O’Donnell’s employment discrimination claims. A jury trial was held on O’Donnell’s two remaining claims, in which she alleged that the Department of Corrections violated '§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. § 704(a), by failing to accommodate adequately her medical needs, and that the individual defendants violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Const. Stat. § 951, et seq., by aiding and abetting conduct that is statutorily prohibited. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on both claims on August 25, 2011.
O’Donnell’s counsel argues with overly excessive zeal that the Magistrate Judge erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections on O’Donnell’s constructive discharge claim. We disagree. We have carefully considered the Magistrate Judge’s comprehensive and thoughtful opinion, which we believe accurately addresses the issues raised by O’Donnell and therefore requires no further elucidation from this Court. We also hold that the sanctions ordered by the Magistrate Judge against defense counsel are warranted in light of counsel’s egregious behavior. The Magistrate *125 Judge has done an admirable job of managing this contentious and challenging case.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court that the orders of the District Court dated May 16, 2011 and October 18, 2011, are hereby affirmed. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. No costs shall be taxed.
BY THE COURT,
/s/_
Michael A. Chagares Circuit Judge
