human resource department, it refused to make any changes. (Id. ¶ 35.) Defendants urge that the Court should infer from this that “a HOVENSA supervisor [dis] agreed with the Plaintiffs that Mr. Williams B operator seniority date should run from February 2008 and not September 2006.” (Reply 5.) The position of Hovensa’s upper management at the time Plaintiffs sought a grievance regarding Williams’ and Plaintiffs’ seniority statuses is an issue of fact that cannot be resolved on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. That the official position of Hovensa’s upper management may be material to the determination of whether the Unions’ decision to not pursue the grievance was arbitrary lends further support for denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 535 (3d Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Defendants could ultimately be correct that,
holding that summary judgment should be denied where the moving party does not show that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact with respect to each essential element of the claim holding that in a traditional motion for summary judgment the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a fact issue after the movant has facially established its right to judgment as a matter of law holding that motion to dismiss should not  be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that judgment on the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law