BEREZANSKY v. CNB BANK, 3:17-cv-00105

Plaintiff Robert S. Berezansky, age 63, was Senior VP of Commercial Loans at CNB from 2004 until his termination in June 2011; he alleges he reported sexual harassment/sex discrimination by others to CNB's CEO shortly before termination.
Plaintiff filed suit in federal court (W.D. Pa.) on June 21, 2017, asserting: Title VII retaliation, PHRA retaliation, and ADEA age discrimination.
Plaintiff's complaint included two specific paragraphs stating the EEOC issued a Determination of reasonable cause (Jan. 30, 2017) and a Notice of Conciliation Failure (Mar. 16, 2017).
Defendants CNB moved to strike those two paragraphs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), arguing the EEOC letters are immaterial, inadmissible, and prejudicial.
Plaintiff argued the paragraphs show administrative exhaustion and provide relevant background; also claimed no prejudice because pleadings are not read to jurors.
The Court denied the motion to strike, ruling that while the EEOC items are of limited relevance, they do not prejudice CNB and striking is a drastic remedy reserved when prejudice exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paragraphs referencing the EEOC Determination and Notice of Conciliation Failure should be struck under Rule 12(f)	The paragraphs are relevant background and demonstrate administrative exhaustion under Title VII/PHRA	The EEOC materials are immaterial, inadmissible at trial, and unfairly prejudicial to CNB	Denied — paragraphs not struck; limited relevance but no prejudice warranting striking under Rule 12(f)

Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333 (3d. Cir. 2002) (upheld district court's exclusion of EEOC determination under Rule 403 in evidentiary context)
Tennis v. Ford Motor Co., 730 F. Supp. 2d 437 (W.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining Rule 12(f) is disfavored and sparingly granted)
Johnson v. Anhorn, 334 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (noting striking pleadings is drastic and appropriate only when allegations are wholly unrelated and prejudicial)
Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 509 (D. N.J. 1989) (observing limited importance of pleadings and disfavouring motions to strike)