Sex dating in drexel hill pennsylvania
Moreover, the original complaint named LWK d/b/a Drexelbrook as a Respondent, and the amended complaint named Drexelbrook Associates as a Respondent. Accordingly, the facts herein show that the right party was brought before the PHRC but under the wrong corporate designation.“The purpose of the pleadings is to place a defendant on notice of the claims that he will have to defend.” Com. This Court notes that Drexelbrook Associates and Kay contend that Murphy v. 549, 486 A.2d 388 (1985) is controlling, as opposed to Vintage Homes.Finally, in both the complaint and the amended complaint Dotson referred to her employer and her landlord interchangeably as Respondent, indicating further that she believed they were both the same entity. Specifically, Drexelbrook Associates and Kay cite Murphy for the proposition that notice is irrelevant to the determination of timeliness.Although the complaint misstates the sections of the PHRA that apply, Count I is specifically labeled “Retaliation.” Count I includes a paragraph stating:9. Respondent retaliated against [Dotson] as a result of her complaints of harassment, hostile work environment and constructive discharge, by evicting [Dotson] from her apartment by letter․C. On April 19, 2006, the Respondent notified me that my lease was being terminated effective June 24, 2006. 978 (1903), wherein, it was held: A party whose name it is asked to amend must be in court.
Similarly we dismiss their contention that the second pleading corrected the first, since the ‘Amended Complaint’ could not properly be construed to convey ex post facto jurisdiction for a period beyond the statutory limit. The language in the complaint and the amended complaint both state a cause of action for retaliatory eviction. Count II of the complaint is labeled “Housing Discrimination (Retaliation),” and includes a paragraph alleging:15. Count I of the amended complaint is labeled “Evict Retaliation–Discrimination,” and contains paragraphs claiming:7. Cunningham, Assistant Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent. William Kay, II(Kay) appeal the July 25, 2011 Final Order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) requiring Drexelbrook Associates and Kay to cease and desist from retaliation against anyone having filed a discrimination claim and ordering various monetary damages in favor of Ingrid Dotson Luderman (Dotson). Drexelbrook Associates also owns LWK Corporation d/b/a Drexelbrook (Drexelbrook), a banquet and catering business. Drexelbrook rents space from Drexelbrook Associates for its banquet and catering business.In July 1995, Dotson became a tenant of Drexelbrook Associates' apartments.BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, President Judge, LEADBETTER, Judge, SIMPSON, Judge, LEAVITT, Judge, BROBSON, Judge, Mc CULLOUGH, Judge, and COVEY, Judge. Drexelbrook Associates' offices are located at 4812 Drexelbrook Drive, a few hundred yards from Drexelbrook's catering facility.
There are essentially two issues before the Court: (1) whether Dotson timely filed her action against Drexelbrook Associates, and (2) whether Dotson timely filed her action against Kay. Drexelbrook Associates is a Limited Partnership with approximately 80 partners. Kay is the operating supervisor over the apartment complex and Drexelbrook.
Accordingly, Dotson did not timely file her action against Kay. “Our scope of review from a determination of the Commission is whether it is in accordance with the law, whether constitutional rights have been violated and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Garner v.