Third Circuit· 1/14/2013

Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp.

Citations

706 F.3d 157
2013 WL 141890
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 864
117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 8

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).

Judges: Greenaway, Roth, Tashima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.