McIlmail v. Pennsylvania

Joyner, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendants, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General ("PA OAG") and Jonathan Duecker's, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22), Plaintiff Michael McIlmail's Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 30), Defendants' Reply in Support thereof (Doc. No. 31), and Plaintiff's Sur-reply thereto (Doc. No. 34). For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants' Motion.

*400I. Factual Background

This case arises from allegations that the PA OAG and its employee Defendant Duecker, for retaliatory and discriminatory reasons, constructively…