Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.

• Citation: 237 A.3d 986
• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 16 EAP 2019,16 EAP 2019
• Parties: NICOLE B., Individually and on Behalf of N.B., Appellant v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Jason Johnson and Jala Pearson, Appellees
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

237 A.3d 986

NICOLE B., Individually and on Behalf of N.B., Appellant

v.SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Jason Johnson and Jala Pearson, Appellees

No. 16 EAP 2019

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: March 10, 2020

Decided: September 16, 2020

OPINION

JUSTICE TODD

In this appeal by allowance, we consider whether principles of equitable tolling found in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 P.S. § 962(e), or Pennsylvania's Minority Tolling Statute ("Minority Tolling Statute"), 42 Pa.C.S. § 5533(b)(1), apply to an otherwise untimely complaint filed by a minor's parent with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("Human Relations Commission"). For the reasons set forth below, we find that the PHRA's equitable tolling provision applies to a minor whose parent fails to satisfy the applicable statute of limitations for filing an administrative complaint prior to the minor reaching the age of majority. Thus, we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.

The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. On October 25, 2011, Appellant Nicole B.’s then-eight-year-old son N.B. was sexually assaulted by three of his male fourth-grade classmates in a bathroom at his public elementary school in the City of Philadelphia. According to Appellant, N.B. had endured two months of pervasive physical and verbal harassment at school leading up to the sexual assault. The harassment included being called, inter alia , "faggot," "gay," and "homo" due to his not conforming to norms regarding masculinity, being punched and kicked, having his glasses broken, being urged to kill himself, and being bullied into unwanted sexual acts. During that time, both Appellant and N.B. reported the harassment to his teacher and to school administrators, to no avail. On November 5, 2011, Appellant withdrew N.B. from the elementary school after learning of the attack.¹

Over two years later, on January 7, 2014, Appellant filed an administrative complaint with the Human Relations Commission against the Philadelphia School District ("District") in her individual capacity and on N.B.’s behalf, asserting claims of discrimination on the basis of gender and race under the PHRA. The Human Relations Commission rejected Appellant's complaint as untimely, because it was filed beyond the 180-day time limit. See 43 P.S. § 959(h) ("Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within one hundred eighty days after the alleged act of discrimination. ..."). Thereafter, Appellant filed a complaint against the District in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, reiterating her PHRA-based discrimination claims. The District countered through preliminary objections and summary judgment motions that Appellant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her administrative complaint was untimely, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. The trial court, however, declined to dismiss the case.

At the conclusion of a six-day bench trial, the District moved for the entry of a compulsory nonsuit, again arguing, inter alia , that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's PHRA-based claims because she failed to timely file her administrative complaint. Ultimately, the trial court granted the District's motion, concluding that Appellant's failure to timely file her administrative complaint with the Human Relations Commission deprived it of jurisdiction. Relevant to the instant matter, the trial court also concluded that neither the PHRA's equitable tolling provision contained in Section 962(e), nor the Minority Tolling Statute, applied to Appellant's administrative complaint. Appellant's post-trial motion to remove the nonsuit was denied. Thus, the trial court entered judgment in the District's favor.

Appellant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, asserting that N.B.’s status as a minor should have tolled the 180-day period for filing his administrative complaint with the Human Relations Commission pursuant to the PHRA's equitable tolling provision and the Minority Tolling Statute, allowing N.B. to file his administrative complaint with the Human Relations Commission after attaining the age of 18.

By way of brief background, the PHRA requires that any administrative complaint alleging unlawful discrimination be filed within 180 days after the alleged act of discrimination. 43 P.S. § 959(h). Furthermore, while an alleged victim of discrimination may bring an action in the court of common pleas for redress, he or she must first exhaust administrative remedies under the PHRA. Id. § 962(c)(1). Thus, typically, an alleged victim of unlawful discrimination must file a complaint with the Human Relations Commission, and do so within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. The PHRA, however, in Section 962(e), allows for the tolling of statutory time limitations based upon waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling:

The time limits for filing under any complaint or other pleading under this act shall be subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling.

Id. § 962(e).

Similarly, the Minority Tolling Statute provides, in relevant part, that minority status shall not count as part of the limitations period:

(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided by statute, insanity or imprisonment does not extend the time limited by this subchapter for the commencement of a matter.

(b) Infancy.--

(1)(i) If an individual entitled to bring a civil action is an unemancipated minor at the time the cause of action accrues, the period of minority shall not be deemed a portion of the time period within which the action must be commenced. Such person shall have the same time for commencing an action after attaining majority as is allowed to others by the provisions of this subchapter.

(ii) As used in this paragraph, the term "minor" shall mean any individual who has not yet attained 18 years of age.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5533.

In the instant matter, a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court affirmed in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. , 868 C.D. 2018, 2018 WL 6596377 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Dec. 17, 2018). Preliminarily, the court explained that, under 43 P.S. § 962(c)(1), an individual alleging discrimination may "bring an action in the courts of common pleas" for legal or equitable relief, but must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies under the Act. Relying upon Vincent v. Fuller Co. , 532 Pa. 547, 616 A.2d 969, 974 (1992) ("By necessary implication, one who files a complaint with the [Human Relations Commission] that is later found to be untimely cannot be considered to have used the administrative procedures provided in the [PHRA]."), the court reasoned that Appellant was precluded from pursuing relief in court because she filed her administrative complaint more than two years after N.B. was sexually assaulted — well beyond the PHRA's 180-day time limit. Thus, the court agreed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Appellant's lawsuit.

Additionally, the court rejected Appellant's contention that Section 962(e) of the PHRA effectively tolls the time requirement for complaints filed by minors, explaining that administrative complaints filed beyond the 180-day window have been permitted in the past based on the doctrine of equitable tolling only "where the defendant actively misleads the plaintiff regarding the cause of action[;] where extraordinary circumstances prevent the plaintiff from asserting his rights[;] and where a plaintiff has asserted his rights in a timely fashion, but in the wrong forum." Nicole B. , 868 C.D. 2018, at 10, 2018 WL 6596377 at *5 (citation omitted). The court noted that Appellant did not advance any of those justifications, and found that her supposition that N.B.’s status as a minor should trigger equitable tolling was without authority and conflated the concepts of equitable tolling and minority tolling, the latter of which the court found "does not toll the statute of limitations unless the legislature has expressly provided for minority tolling." Id. at 12, at *5 (emphasis original). The court explained that the doctrine of equitable tolling typically applies where a plaintiff was unaware of or unable to timely discover his tortious injury, or the cause therefor, through no fault of his own. The court observed that, here, Appellant learned of the harassment and of her son's injury as early as November 4, 2011, and was, thus, required to file her administrative complaint by May 2, 2012. The court concluded that Appellant's untimely administrative complaint could not be revived via equitable tolling.

The court likewise rejected Appellant's reliance upon the Minority Tolling Statute, surmising that it was bound by this Court's holdings in Vincent , supra , and East v. WCAB , 574 Pa. 16, 828 A.2d 1016 (2003) (holding that Section 5533(b) does not apply to workers’ compensation proceedings), and by the express language of Section 5533(b)(1) limiting its application to "civil action[s]." With respect to East , the court opined that this Court's rationale barring application of Section 5533(b) to workers’ compensation proceedings extended to other administrative forums, noting that it had previously relied upon East's holding in the context of a minor's untimely appeal from a Department of Public Welfare decision. See V.S. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , 131 A.3d 523, 534 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) ("It is evident that the General Assembly and the courts have deemed the Minor Tolling Statute applicable to matters in which a minor initiates a civil lawsuit in a court of record, and not those in which a minor is appealing from an administrative decision."). Moreover, the court viewed the legislature's decision to incorporate equitable tolling, but not minority tolling, into the PHRA as evidence that it did not intend for the 180-day time constraint to be tolled merely based upon a complainant's age. Ultimately, the court concluded that "[a]llowing [Appellant's] PHRA claims to proceed in...