Drexelbrook Associates v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 185
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Dotson became a Drexelbrook tenant in 1995 and worked part-time for Drexelbrook from 2001–2002.
- Dotson settled a sexual harassment EEOC claim with Drexelbrook in January 2006, with Kay present at the settlement.
- In April 2006, Kay terminated Dotson's lease; a August 2006 letter from Dotson's counsel described this as retaliatory action.
- Dotson filed a PHRC complaint in October 2006 naming multiple Drexelbrook entities and related entities; the complaint was amended in December 2006 to rename respondents including Drexelbrook Associates and Kay, with Kay added for aiding and abetting.
- A PHRC hearing occurred in 2011; the Permanent Hearing Examiner recommended discrimination findings, and the PHRC finalized a final order on July 25, 2011, which Drexelbrook Associates and Kay appealed.
- The central issues are whether Dotson timely filed against Drexelbrook Associates and against Kay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness against Drexelbrook Associates | Dotson filed against the right party, albeit under the wrong corporate designation. | The amendment did not enlarge the time limits; the wrong party designation should not toll. | Dotson timely filed against Drexelbrook Associates. |
| Timeliness against Kay | Kay was included only in the amended complaint after the 180-day period. | Kay was not named in the original complaint, so amendment added a new respondent beyond the period. | Dotson did not timely file against Kay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vintage Homes, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 581 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 1990) (amendment to correct corporate name does not extend the statute of limitations; right party must be before the court within time)
- Murphy v. Commonwealth, 486 A.2d 388 (Pa. 1985) (no tolling where original complaint was defective and amended complaint cannot convey jurisdiction beyond statutory limit)
- Wright v. Eureka Tempered Copper Company, 206 Pa. 274, 55 A. 978 (Pa. 1903) (when amending, must not bring a new party after the limitations period)
- Saracina v. Cotoia, 208 A.2d 764 (Pa. 1965) (principles guiding amendments to naming respondents)
- Com. v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (pleadings must place a defendant on notice of claims to preserve jurisdiction)