Sex dating in drexel hill pennsylvania
In November 2001, Dotson was hired to be a part-time bartender at Drexelbrook's banquet facility.
Because the 180 day statute of limitations had lapsed before the amendment, the PHRC had no jurisdiction to address any claims against Kay. By letter dated August 3, 2006, Dotson's attorney advised Drexelbrook that Kay's action of terminating the lease was considered a retaliatory action.On October 16, 2006, Dotson filed a complaint with the PHRC alleging unlawful retaliation naming LWK Corporation d/b/a Drexelbrook, 4812 Drexelbrook Drive, Drexel Hill, PA 19026, and d/b/a Drexelbrook Caterers, and Drexelbrook Catering, Drexelbrook Drive and Valley Road, Drexel Hill, PA 19026, as Respondents. The amended complaint added a claim against Kay for aiding and abetting.On July 8, 2011, the Permanent Hearing Examiner recommended a finding that Drexelbrook Associates and Kay did unlawfully discriminate against Dotson by terminating her lease in retaliation for the sexual harassment claim.On July 25, 2011, the PHRC entered a Final Order adopting the Permanent Hearing Examiner's Recommendation.
The Court specifically held: Since the [original] complaint was defective, the [PHRC] was without jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case until the properly pleaded ‘Amended Complaint,’ and thus we find no merit in appellant's tolling argument. In the instant case, the original complaint was not defective, thus giving the PHRC jurisdiction to hear the matter.