Sharon taylor lock haven university2/19/2024 The trial court rejected Garlick s arguments that the time period should be considered to have been equitably tolled because of Lock Haven s internal grievance process or because the PHRC told him the 180 days began to run on June 30, 2005. The trial court held that the 180day time period for Garlick to file a complaint with the PHRC began on April 18, 2005, the date of the letter informing Garlick his contract would not be renewed, and not on his last day of work, June 30, 2005. 2 Appellees filed Preliminary Objections to Garlick s Amended Complaint alleging that Garlick failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his complaint to the PHRC was not timely filed, and his Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The PHRC issued Garlick a right-to-sue letter, and he instituted the instant action in the trial court. On December 12, 2006, the PHRC informed Garlick that it would not accept his complaint because it was filed more than 180 days after Garlick received the Apletter that informed him his contract would not be renewed. B.) Garlick submitted questionnaire forms constituting a complaint with the PHRC on December 23, 2005. (Letter from Pertillar to Garlick, October 31, 2005, Amended Complaint Ex. The letter also stated that the PHRC, within 180 days of the alleged act of harm, must receive a written and verified complaint. (Complaint ¶ 28 see also Amended Complaint ¶ 1 (incorporating original Complaint).) On October 31, 2005, Garlick received a letter from Gay Pertillar, a Human Relations Representative with PHRC, which stated the PHRC had jurisdiction to investigate Garlick s complaint and invited him to come into the PHRC to complete questionnaires so that the PHRC could draft a complaint. Garlick alleges that he contacted the by telephone in late September of 2005 and was advised that there was sufficient time to process his Complaint by mail in that the effective date of his non-renewal was June 30, 2005. In May 2005, Garlick initiated an internal grievance process with Lock Haven alleging sexual discrimination. Garlick alleges that Lock Haven s decision not to renew his contract was because Sharon Taylor, Lock Haven s Director of Athletics, wanted the Head Coach of Women s Swimming to be a woman. Lock Haven notified Garlick by letter on Apthat his employment contract, which ended June 30, 2005, would not be renewed. According to his Complaint, Garlick was employed by Lock Haven from February 2001 as the Head Coach of Women s Swimming. Garlick also argues the trial court erred in determining that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Garlick argues the trial court erred in determining that Garlick failed to file a timely complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) prior to filing suit in the trial court. Taylor (collectively, Appellees), and dismissed Garlick s Amended Complaint alleging sexual discrimination. Garlick (Garlick) petitions for review of the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County (trial court), which granted the Preliminary Objections of Lock Haven University (Lock Haven) and Sharon E. BUTLER, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: DecemGeorge B. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE JOHNNY J. IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA George B.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |