IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 20, 2013
KAREN B. GOKAY, PLAINTIFF
JOHN J. GEORGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence F. Stengel, J.
AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the defendants' partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Document #9), the plaintiff's response thereto (Document #10), and the defendants' reply (Document #16), I make the following findings:
(1) The amended complaint contains allegations of the defendants' conduct that occurred outside of the 300 day limitations period for EEOC claims, and outside the 180 day limitations period for PHRC claims.
(2) As time-barred, this conduct cannot be actionable here. See Mikula v. Allegheny County, 583 F.3d 181, 185-186 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002)).
(3) The defendants' alleged prior acts are included in the amended complaint solely as background evidence in support of the plaintiff's timely claims of discrimination. See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
Lawrence F. Stengel
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.