Szurgyjlo v. SourceOne Pharmacy Services, LLC
2:20-cv-04304
E.D. Pa.Dec 9, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Samantha Szurgyjlo, a pharmacist at SourceOne, alleges she was fired on January 13, 2020 after notifying supervisors she would take pregnancy leave.
- Plaintiff filed a dual charge with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) on April 29, 2020; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on August 17, 2020 and Plaintiff sued on September 2, 2020.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law discrimination claims, arguing the PHRC retains exclusive jurisdiction for one year after filing and thus federal court lacks jurisdiction.
- The Court treated Defendants’ motion as a facial 12(b)(1) challenge (no factual dispute) and considered the complaint and attachments in Plaintiff’s favor.
- At the time of the motion, less than one year had elapsed since the PHRC filing and PHRC had not taken action; the Court found the PHRC therefore retained exclusive jurisdiction.
- The Court dismissed the state-law (PHRA) claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, allowed Plaintiff to amend and reassert them after the PHRC one-year period lapses, and permitted federal claims to proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction over PHRA claims while PHRC’s one-year exclusive period runs | Szurgyjlo argued the case should proceed because she obtained an EEOC right-to-sue and the PHRC period will expire during litigation | SourceOne argued PHRC retains exclusive jurisdiction until it acts or one year elapses, depriving federal court of jurisdiction | Court held it lacked jurisdiction over PHRA claims while PHRC’s one-year exclusive period had not elapsed; dismissed state-law claims without prejudice |
| Whether courts may apply a "flexible" approach permitting premature PHRA suits to remain if the PHRC period expires during proceedings | Plaintiff relied on cases allowing courts to keep claims when the PHRC period lapses during litigation | Defendants argued the flexible approach cannot create jurisdiction while PHRC still has exclusive control at the time of the ruling | Court rejected applying a flexible approach where PHRC still had exclusive jurisdiction at time of decision; courts cannot create jurisdictional exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 678 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2012) (standard for facial vs. factual jurisdictional attacks under Rule 12(b)(1))
- Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014) (framework for analyzing facial and factual jurisdictional attacks)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (federal courts lack authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements)
- Tlush v. Manufacturers Resource Center, 315 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (dismissing premature PHRA suits for failure to exhaust administrative remedies)
- Volanti v. Emery Worldwide A-CF Co., 847 F. Supp. 1251 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (recognizing one-year PHRC exclusive period and permitting suit only after it lapses)