Legal Opinion
Wertz v. Chapman Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 21, 1999PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*632 OPINION
CAPPY, Justice.
We granted allocatur to address an issue to which this court has not spoken. Specifically, we shall consider whether a plaintiff seeking monetary damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”)1 is entitled to a trial by jury. For the reasons stated more fully below, we find that a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial for claims arising under the PHRA. Thus, we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
The facts of this matter are as follows. In December of 1989, Sherry Wertz (Appellant) was hired as a road crew laborer for Chapman Township (together…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Granfinanciera, S.A. v. NordbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Lorillard v. PonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Curtis v. LoetherSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Tull v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Marra v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Commonwealth v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Mishoe v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. McMullenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Commonwealth v. GlassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.