Background

• Plaintiff Tracey Jackson, a former PSU employee, sued PSU for wrongful discharge and asserted multiple claims including ADEA, PHRA, local Borough Ordinance claims (Counts III and VIII), ERISA (Count V), Title VII, and § 1981.
• PSU moved to dismiss Counts III, V, and VIII and sought dismissal of punitive damages (later withdrawn); Jackson agreed to dismiss Count V, which was dismissed with prejudice.
• PSU’s dismissal argument for Counts III and VIII: Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the State College Anti-Discrimination in Employment Ordinance by not filing a complaint with the State College Human Relations Commission (SCHRC).
• The Ordinance’s Section 908.b permits an action after SCHRC dismissal or one year after filing with the SCHRC; Section 909 bars the Ordinance’s jurisdiction over matters pending before other agencies; Section 908.c preserves rights under other laws.
• The Court concluded reading 908.b as requiring SCHRC filing would force plaintiffs to choose between Ordinance claims and state/federal claims and would frustrate 908.c and the Ordinance’s purpose; therefore the Court interpreted 908.b to allow exhaustion via cross-filing with another administrative agency when based on the same facts.
• Holding: Jackson’s cross-filings with the EEOC and PHRC satisfied the Ordinance’s exhaustion requirement; Counts III and VIII survive PSU’s motion to dismiss.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Vandegrift v. City of Philadelphia, 228 F. Supp. 3d 464 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (interpreting a similar municipal ordinance to permit exhaustion through another agency filing)
• Richards v. Foulke Associates, Inc., 151 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (noting PHRA administrative filing deadline constraints)