J.T. Foust v. PA DHS, 305 A.3d 1128

Employee (Foust) worked as a Forensic Security employee at Torrance State Hospital and was discharged for "Unauthorized Absence/Unavailability for Employment" on August 10, 2015.
Employee alleged work-related injuries (May 2012 and Dec. 2014), requested accommodations and leave extensions, and never returned to full duty.
Employee filed an EEOC charge on May 3, 2016 and a PHRC complaint on May 25, 2016; DHS removed Employee from the Civil Service List by letter dated August 31, 2016; PHRC issued a right-to-sue notice around September 11, 2017.
Employer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Employee’s PHRA/PHRC claims were untimely because PHRC charges must be filed within 180 days of the discrete discriminatory act (termination).
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding termination and the later removal from the Civil Service List were discrete acts and Employee’s administrative filings were untimely; Employee appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS’s August 31, 2016 removal from the Civil Service List was a continuing violation that tolls the 180‑day PHRA filing period for Foust’s August 10, 2015 termination	Removal continued the discriminatory act based on the same justification, so tolling applies and the PHRC filing is timely	Termination and removal are separate discrete acts; each triggers its own limitations clock, so the PHRC filing about the termination was untimely	Held: removal and termination are discrete acts; continuing‑violation tolling inapplicable; PHRA claims time‑barred
Whether the court erred by drawing a negative inference from Foust’s failure to reply to Employer’s New Matter	No reply was required for legal conclusions; failure to respond should not permit adverse inference	Employee’s failure to reply admitted factual averments; critical timeline facts are undisputed and supported the judgment	Held: court did not rely on a negative inference; it relied on undisputed factual timeline; no error

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinguishes discrete acts from continuing violations; hostile work environment claims may be tolled)
Barra v. Rose Tree Media School District, 858 A.2d 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (applies Morgan to PHRA: continuing‑violation doctrine limited to hostile work environment claims)
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (refines Third Circuit law on continuing violations after Morgan)
West v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 45 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 1995) (pre‑Morgan continuing‑violation precedent; distinguishable where hostile work environment is alleged)
Vincent v. Fuller Co., 616 A.2d 969 (Pa. 1992) (PHRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies within statutory period)