Sex dating in drexel hill pennsylvania

14-Aug-2020 21:21

Accordingly, Dotson did not timely file her action against Kay. “Our scope of review from a determination of the Commission is whether it is in accordance with the law, whether constitutional rights have been violated and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Garner v.

Webcamxxx site hack

Cmwlth.1990), held that “the act of permitting [a party] to amend her complaint with the [PHRC] for the purpose of correcting the corporate name of the respondent did not have the effect of enlarging the time limitations set forth in the [PHRA]․” Id., 581 A.2d at 1017. The Court in Vintage Homes specifically concluded that “the right party was brought within the [PHRC's] jurisdiction by the original complaint, but under the wrong corporate designation” based upon the close relationship of the corporate entities. Factors relied on by the Court included the fact that the initial complaint was served at the correct mailing address, and that the allegations made in both complaints were identical. Drexelbrook Associates owns Drexelbrook, and Kay is both Drexelbrook Associates' general partner, and Drexelbrook's president.

Cunningham, Assistant Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent. William Kay, II(Kay) appeal the July 25, 2011 Final Order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) requiring Drexelbrook Associates and Kay to cease and desist from retaliation against anyone having filed a discrimination claim and ordering various monetary damages in favor of Ingrid Dotson Luderman (Dotson). Drexelbrook Associates also owns LWK Corporation d/b/a Drexelbrook (Drexelbrook), a banquet and catering business. Drexelbrook rents space from Drexelbrook Associates for its banquet and catering business.

In July 1995, Dotson became a tenant of Drexelbrook Associates' apartments.

I allege that Respondent's actions were retaliatory because I was a resident at this Respondent (sic) property for about eleven (11) years. Both the complaint and the amended complaint were served on Drexelbrook Associates and both contained an allegation of retaliatory eviction against “Respondent .” The chart below illustrates with detailed comparison why we must adhere to Vintage Homes and the stare decisis upon which it relied.

I also worked for the Respondent for about one year. As in Wright and Vintage Homes the original complaint brought the right party, Drexelbrook Associates, before the PHRC as a result of the service of process, and the amended complaint merely sought to change the closely-related corporate designation of Drexelbrook to Drexelbrook Associates.

This Court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Vintage Homes, stating: “If the right party was in court as a result of the service of process and it was merely his or its designation which was sought to be changed, we would be prone to permit the amendment.” Id., 581 A.2d at 1017 (quoting Saracina v. Here, although Dotson technically named her former employer in the original complaint, and her former landlord in the amended complaint, the cause of action was the same, i.e., retaliatory eviction from her residence, in both the complaint and the amended complaint. The same attorney represents Drexelbrook Associates, Drexelbrook, and Kay.