Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a supervisor who fails to stop known acts of discrimination may be held liable under the PHRA for “aiding or abetting” the discriminatory acts
• recognizing that, unlike Title VII, the PHRA allows for individual liability with respect to aiding-and-abetting claims against supervisory employees
• holding that only supervisory employees may be liable for “aiding and abetting” an employer’s alleged discriminatory practice under the PHRA
• deciding that individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII
• holding that an allegation that the plaintiff's supervisor knew or should have known that the plaintiff was being harassed by co-workers and repeatedly refused to take prompt action would, if proven true, constitute aiding and abetting
• finding that the plaintiff failed to present facts to indicate that the individual defendant aided or abetted the plaintiff's employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).