Gabriella Liberatore v. iSolutions Payments

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Gabriella Liberatore’s claims under the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. The court held that Liberatore failed to exhaust administrative remedies because she filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which lacked jurisdiction over her employer, rather than with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which had jurisdiction. The opinion distinguishes a prior case permitting administrative exhaustion through the PHRC where both agencies had jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Merely filing a discrimination complaint with the PHRC does not exhaust administrative remedies when the PHRC lacks jurisdiction over the employer and therefore cannot fully investigate, review, and administer the claims.
2. Where both the PHRA and Philadelphia Ordinance apply and both the PHRC and Philadelphia Commission have jurisdiction, a claimant may satisfy exhaustion by filing with either agency, provided the agency fully investigates, reviews, and processes the claim and the later civil claims concern the same discriminatory conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether filing an administrative complaint with the PHRC, which lacked jurisdiction over the employer because it employed fewer than four persons in Pennsylvania, exhausted administrative remedies for claims under the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance.
2. Whether a claimant may proceed in court under the Philadelphia Ordinance without first submitting the discrimination claims to the Philadelphia Commission, the only agency with jurisdiction to investigate and administer them.

Disposition

affirmed