 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Uber v. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania of the State System of Higher Education11/23/2005
Clair T. Uber (Uber) appeals an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County that granted Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania of the State System of Higher Education's (the University) Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Uber's age discrimination claim, and the University's Motion for Non-suit with respect to Uber's retaliation claim for an allegedly unjustifiable low performance evaluation.
In 1981, Uber was hired by the University as a Police Officer (PO) #1. In either January or February 1998, the University posted a vacancy for a PO #2 position to which Uber, as well as four other PO #1's, applied. Uber interviewed for the vacant position but was not selected. Uber alleges that, at 59 years of age, he was the oldest applicant and member of the police force and that a "younger and less qualified" employee was selected for the position. (R. Item 1, Civil Complaint 13.) On March 26, 1998, upon being notified of the University's decision not to hire him, Uber filed a grievance with the University's Director of Social Equity, Dwight Greer, complaining that he was discriminated against because of his age. Mr. Greer conducted an investigation into the matter and ultimately enlisted the assistance of investigator Mel Gillespie of East Stroudsburg University to determine the merits of the charge. On October 5, 1998, Mr. Gillespie wrote a letter to Mr. Greer, wherein he stated that there was no evidence of age discrimination and that the person selected for the position was over forty years old. (R. Item 37, Uber Ex. 3, attached at 50.)
On May 29, 1999, Uber filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) alleging a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). On December 14, 1999, the PHRC disposed of the case based upon a finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation.
Uber claims that the University began a pattern of harassment after he filed the discrimination complaint by: routinely excluding him from discussions, unnecessarily opposing leave and vacation requests, refusing his request for desk duty related to an alleged disability, and issuing him an unfair performance review. As a result of this alleged retaliation on the part of the University, on January 7, 2000, Uber filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and cross-filed with the PHRC. This complaint was amended on May 1, 2000. The PHRC closed the investigation on January 12, 2001, after finding no violations.
On January 25, 2001, Uber filed a Civil Complaint with the trial court setting forth two claims: Count I -- a claim of age discrimination pursuant to Section 5(a) of the PHRA; and, Count II -- a claim of retaliation pursuant to Section 5(d) of the PHRA. The University filed its Answer and New Matter to which Uber filed a Reply to New Matter. Thereafter, the University filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to which Uber filed his Opposition, and oral argument before the trial court was held on January 23, 2004.
The trial court issued an Order and Opinion granting in part and denying in part the University's Motion for Summary Judgment. (5/13/04 Trial Ct. Op.) Pertinent to the appeal before this Court, the trial court granted the University's Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Count I -- age discrimination. The trial court held that, because Uber was notified on March 26, 1998 that he would not be promoted and did not file his claim with the PHRC until May 29, 1999, he was outside the 180-day time limit for filing a claim and could not seek judicial review. Significantly, the trial court rejected Uber's arguments that the statutory deadline was subject to "equitabl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|