Weems v. KEHE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 804 F. Supp. 2d 339

Weems, a black male, was a truck driver for Kehe at Bethlehem, PA, and was terminated.
Weems filed an EEOC charge (dual-filed with Illinois IDHR) alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on June 1, 2010; Weems filed a federal complaint on September 1, 2010.
Plaintiff asserted Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and PHRA claims in the Complaint.
Kehe moved to dismiss several claims on exhaustion and timeliness grounds.
Court denied the motion in full, addressing administrative exhaustion and statute-of-limitations issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether harassment/hostile work environment claims were exhausted	Weems' charge context shows ongoing discrimination claims; harassment/hostile environment grow from this	Harassment/hostile environment claims were not referenced in the EEOC charge	Claims fall within the scope of the EEOC charge; exhaustion satisfied
Whether PHRA exhaustion is excused by equitable filing	EEOC misrepresentation led to late PHRC filing; equitable relief applies	Equitable filing is not clearly established; PHRA exhaustion not proven	PHRA claim not dismissed at this stage; equitable filing argument requires briefing
Whether Title VII claims are time-barred	Action filed within 90 days of receipt of right-to-sue letter	Limitation period runs from EEOC notice issuance	Claims timely; receipt occurred June 5, 2010

Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) (scope of EEOC charge for exhaustion)
Hicks v. ABT Assocs., Inc., 572 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1978) (equitable relief for exhaustion when EEOC misled)
Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) (equitable filing doctrine under PHRA)
Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1976) (charges can grow out of discrimination allegations)
Vincent v. Fuller Co., 532 Pa. 547 (Pa. 1992) (PHRA exhaustion exclusivity and administrative remedies)