Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LEWIS v. FOP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 28, 1998

JOHN GREENE and KEVIN LEWIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, "First Federal" Lodge, F-1 Pennsylvania, and GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: KATZ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 KATZ, District Judge

 Factual Background

 In this case, plaintiffs John Greene and Kevin Lewis, who are African American, have alleged that defendants have discriminated against them by denying them reimbursement for legal expenses. Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution of the defendant "First Federal Lodge, F-1 Pennsylvania" provides as follows:

 

Any active member in good standing who shall, as a result of the proper performance of his police duties or any member who shall believe that he is being, or about to be deprived of his legal rights in relations to job tenure, wages, pensions, or other benefits or privileges accruing to him as a result of his employment (provided such deprivation shall jeopardize the welfare of all policemen), shall be entitled to apply to the Lodge for legal assistance and bail

 Def. Mot. Ex. A.

 The same Article set out a procedure for application, review, and appeal of any requests for legal reimbursement by a member of the F-1 Lodge, and Article 24 of the Constitution and By-laws of the national organization, the Grand Lodge, also sets forth procedures for processing requests for legal assistance by active members. See id. Exs. A, B. Plaintiffs claim that their requests for legal assistance were denied by the defendants, while white members of the same organizations did receive legal assistance. Their complaint alleges violations of Title VII, § 1981, and the PHRA, and the complaint includes pendent state law claims. Defendants now move for summary judgment. *fn1"

 Discussion

 As plaintiffs have set forth evidence that raises factual questions as to plaintiffs' Title VII and § 1981 claims, the court will address the substance of defendants' arguments under the PHRA.

 Defendants claim that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the PHRA. Plaintiffs filed no administrative complaint within the 180 day time limit required by the PHRA, and they have offered no evidence to indicate that they did so, or that any defenses apply to their case. See 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 959 (Supp. 1998). The 180 day requirement under the PHRA has been rather strictly construed by both the Third Circuit and Pennsylvania courts, and the court does not see any reason to deviate from this line of precedent. See, e.g., Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 925-29 (3d Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is therefore granted as to Count II of plaintiffs' complaint. An appropriate Order follows.

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 1998, upon consideration of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and having heard both sides in chambers, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count II of the Complaint and DENIED as to Counts I, III, IV, and V of the Complaint.

 BY THE COURT:

 MARVIN KATZ, J.

 JUDGMENT

 AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 1998, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiffs John Greene and Kevin Lewis on Count II of plaintiffs' complaint.

 BY THE COURT:

 MARVIN KATZ, J.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.