In re Proboknow, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the 300- day limitation period applied to the plaintiffs’ administrative charges with the EEOC, regardless of whether plaintiffs ever filed a charge with the PHRC
• concluding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for retaliation where they “merely allege[d] in conclusory terms that [one plaintiff] ‘has been retaliated against’ for his complaints, and that defendant ‘is responsible for retaliating against’ them” (citations omitted)
• noting that a plaintiff “may use prior discrete discriminatory acts ‘as background evidence in support of [a] timely claim[]” (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113)
• noting that \[c]ourts in this Circuit have ... shown a reluctance to dismiss a complaint at the 12(b)(6) stage when the primary challenge to the hostile work environment claim is whether or not the conduct in question is severe and/or pervasive.\
• finding no independent cause of action for respondeat superior under Pennsylvania law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).