Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Plaintiffs PHRA claims were time-barred because “[t]he 300-day extended statute of limitations applies only to the Charge, not to the PHRA filing.”
• holding that the challenged conduct must be evaluated in light of its frequency, severity, and whether it “unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee’s work performance”
• holding that “an employee who holds a different job in a different department is not similarly situated”
• holding that any claims alleging retaliation were barred because the plaintiff did not check the box for retaliation or describe any retaliatory conduct in the Charge
• holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claim where she failed to check the box for retaliation on the charge or allege any retaliatory conduct in the charge
• holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation claims and affirming dismissal, where the plaintiff did not check the retaliation box on the charge and failed to allege any retaliatory conduct in the charge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).