RIGHT TO SUE LETTER FROM PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION NOT REQUIRED TO FILE RACE DISCRIMINATION CASE IN STATE COURT

• Monday, July 1, 2019
• Category: Employment Law

Plaintiff did not need a right to sue letter from the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission prior to filing this race discrimination case in state court. Plaintiff exhausted his statutory remedies when his amended complaint was filed upon the expiration of the commission’s one year jurisdiction over the matter.

Plaintiff worked for defendant from 2008 until he was terminated in October 2017. Plaintiff filed this complaint against his former employer for racial discrimination. Defendant filed preliminary objections, asserting that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.

In January 2018, plaintiff filed a formal complaint against defendant with both the Equal Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission. On March 20, 2018, the EEOC issued plaintiff a right to sue letter. Plaintiff filed this action on October 3, 2018. He later filed an amended complaint, to which defendant filed preliminary objections. Plaintiff then filed another amended complaint, and defendant refilled its preliminary objections. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to establish that plaintiff exhausted his statutory remedies.

Plaintiff sought relief under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act based on race. He was not allowed to initiate a court proceeding without first submitting the case to the PHRC, which had sole jurisdiction of claims brought under the act for a period of one year after their filing. According to defendant, plaintiff’s claim failed because he did not allege the PHRC closed his case or provided him with a right to sue letter. However, the court noted that prior state case law held that the PHRC’s failure to issue a notice of the right to sue after one year did not bar a civil action under the state statute. Plaintiff dual-filed with the EEOC and PHRC at the same time. The court found that plaintiff’s first two complaints were ultimately filed, but his subsequent amended complaint was filed one year late. Therefore, the court concluded plaintiff had exhausted his statutory remedies, and jurisdiction was properly with the court.

In its preliminary objections, defendant also asserted that plaintiff violated the procedural rules with respect to his most recent amended complaint. The court assumed that the second filing was done to cure any issue about plaintiff exhausting the one year jurisdiction of the PHRC.  If the court dismissed the complaint for a technical reason, then plaintiff would simply refile the same complaint again. The court did not believe this was necessary, so in the interest of judicial economy, it overruled this preliminary objection.

References:

Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 42 PLW 374, Tuesday, April 16, 2019, Jones v. SEIUHealthcare, PICS Case No. 19-0345 (C.P. Monroe March 20, 2019)

Kindly visit our Employment Law and Business & Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Attorneys or Business Law Attorneys at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.