Legal Opinion

Marriott Corp. v. Alexander

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 26, 2002PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

In this appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia’s (trial court) denial of judgment on the pleadings, we are asked to decide whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required before a party can bring a suit under the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, Phila. Code §§ 9-1100 — 9-1110 (Philadelphia Ordinance). We hold that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a condition precedent to court involvement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

The facts are not in dispute. 1 Dea Alexander (Employee) was employed by Marriott Corporation (Employer) as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Lukus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Fye v. Central Transportation Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. McGill v. Southwark Realty Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Frazier v. COM. PA STATE, POLICECommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Kuhn v. Oehme Carrier Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Youssef v. Anvil InternationalDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API