to the Court regarding the Title VII claim are substantially similar to the ones concerning a claim for negligent retention. Thus, no further discovery will be required. As a result, we conclude the University will suffer no prejudice if we grant leave to Ms. Schofield to amend her complaint. Ms. Schofield's motion for leave to add a claim for negligent retention to her complaint will therefore be granted.
B. PHRA Claim
A discrimination claim brought under the PHRA is governed by the same burden of proof structure as a Title VII claim. Brennan v. National Tel. Directory Corp., 881 F. Supp. 986, 994 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Thus, since the evidence relevant to the Title VII claim would also apply to a PHRA claim, it would appear that the University would not be prejudiced unduly if it were compelled to defend a PHRA claim at trial. Nonetheless, the University opposes the addition of the PHRA claim, arguing that such a claim would be futile since the applicable limitations period has expired. See Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988)(noting that amendment of the complaint is futile if the amended complaint cannot withstand a motion to dismiss).
Before a plaintiff can properly bring a PHRA claim to this Court, she must exhaust her administrative remedies. Parsons v. City of Philadelphia Coordinating Office of Drug & Alcohol Abuse Programs, 833 F. Supp. 1108, 1112 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Thus, she must, as an initial matter, file a complaint of discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC") within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination. 43 P.S. § 959(h)(Supp. 1994); Brennan, 881 F. Supp. at 997. The evidence submitted indicates that Ms. Schofield filed with the PHRC in early March, 1994. And while the University argues that Ms. Schofield's complaint alludes to discriminatory conduct extending only into July of 1993, the complaint contains allegations regarding the University's failure to take remedial action in November, 1993. For example, in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the complaint, Ms. Schofield alleges that she complained to a University official who had knowledge of her supervisor's misbehavior in November, and that no corrective steps were taken. Since the PHRA claim would therefore survive a motion to dismiss, we conclude that its addition would not be futile. Accordingly, we will grant Ms. Schofield leave to submit an amended complaint that includes a PHRA claim.
For the above-stated reasons, Ms. Schofield's motion will be granted.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint, and the response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the preceding Memorandum, that said Motion is GRANTED. Ms. Schofield shall file an amended complaint within three (3) days of the date of this Order's entry.
BY THE COURT:
J. Curtis Joyner, J.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.