U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Clerk's Office

...
:
SIMCO, a division of ILLINOIS :
TOOL WORKS, INC., et al. :
:
Defendants. :
JOYNER, J. MARCH , 2001
MEMORANDUM
This is an employment discrimination case brought by
Plaintiff Puneeta Kunwar (“Plaintiff”) against her employer Simco
and several Simco employees, including Kien Van Nguyen (“Van
...


... discriminating against her on the basis of sex,
subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and retaliating
against her for filing a sexual discrimination claim. Presently
before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to2
Simco’s Position Statement-Part II, which accompanied Simco’s ...


... this lost time, but later
did allow her to collect her rightful benefits.
Finally, on October 18, 1999, Plaintiff dual-filed her first
charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
(“PHRC”). She later filed a second charge in ...


... (internal quotations
omitted).
II. Failure to Exhaust
Generally, an employee must exhaust all administrative
remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the
appropriate state or federal agency before filing suit under
Title VII or the PHRA. See, e.g., Waiters v. Parsons, 729 F.2d
233, 237 (3d ...


... 237 (3d Cir. 1984). In exhausting her administrative
remedies, the plaintiff is required to name all persons alleged
to have committed acts of discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1); 43 P.S. § 959. The purpose behind this rule is to alert
the implicated parties and to encourage an informal ...


...
(3d Cir. 1980) (stating four-part test for exception to
exhaustion requirement). As a result of this exception, district
courts have permitted discrimination suits to go forward,
notwithstanding imperfect exhaustion, in a variety of situations.
See, e.g., Glickstein v. Neshaminy Sch. Dist., No. CIV.A. ...


... body of Plaintiff’s charge.
After setting forth a general allegation of sexual harassment,
the October 1999 EEOC charge lists particular acts of
discrimination committed by Van Nguyen, Patel, and Islam. (Def.
Ex. A). The charge also states that McGuire did not take any
action to correct this ...


... committed by Van Nguyen, Patel, and Islam. (Def.
Ex. A). The charge also states that McGuire did not take any
action to correct this discrimination, despite Plaintiff’s
complaints. (Id.). Plaintiff further expanded on her
allegations against McGuire in her July 2000 EEOC charge. (Def.
Ex. ...


... Plaintiff’s explanation unpersuasive.
There is nothing inherent to a supervisor’s role that would
automatically implicate him in an employee’s discrimination
claims against co-workers, other supervisors, or the company atlarge. Plaintiff’s omission of Serrone is particularly glaring
in view that she ...


... of Limitations and Continuing Violation Theory
Under Title VII, a plaintiff must file his complaint with
the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discrimination or within
300 days of the alleged discrimination if he initially instituted
proceedings with a state or local agency such as the PHRC. 42
U.S.C. ...


...
Under Title VII, a plaintiff must file his complaint with
the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discrimination or within
300 days of the alleged discrimination if he initially instituted
proceedings with a state or local agency such as the PHRC. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). Under the PHRA, a plaintiff must ...


... for discriminatory conduct that began
prior to the filing period if he can demonstrate that the act is
part of an ongoing practice or pattern of discrimination of the
defendant.’” Rush, 113 F.3d at 481 (quoting West v. Philadelphia
Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 754 (3d Cir. 1995)). For the theory to
apply, a ...


... that at least one discriminatory act
occurred within the statutory period. And second, the plaintiff
must show a continuing pattern of discrimination, i.e., something
more than just an occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts of
intentional discrimination. See id. (citing West, 45 F.3d at
...


...
must show a continuing pattern of discrimination, i.e., something
more than just an occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts of
intentional discrimination. See id. (citing West, 45 F.3d at
754-55). In evaluating whether the second prong of the test is
met, courts should consider the subject matter, ...


...
754-55). In evaluating whether the second prong of the test is
met, courts should consider the subject matter, frequency, and
permanence of the discrimination. Id. (citations omitted);
LaRose, 21 F. Supp. 2d at 498. The most important of these
factors is permanence. As the Third Circuit noted, the ...


... period.”).
Of the three factors to be evaluated, there does not appear
to be any dispute that the subject matter and frequency of the14
alleged discrimination by Simco, McGuire, and Islam demonstrate
an ongoing pattern. As for the third factor, degree of
permanence, we first note that there was no ...