Christy v. Sill
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Steekett, Williams
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Pennsylvania
Related Laws
Outcome
The Commonwealth Court vacated the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order denying benefits and remanded for the board to act on the claimant's petition to amend his claim to assert a Section 301(c) injury claim for work-related aggravation of his preexisting lung disease.
Excerpt
APPEALS BY G. W. GUTHRIE AND EDWIN BINDLEY EROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY, IN EQUITY. Nos. 168, 159 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 211 January Term 1881 (acct. at No. 180J- July Term 1888), C. P. No. 2, in Equity. On November 8,1879, to No. 150 January Term 1880, C. P. No. 2, J. T. Stockdale, trustee of the Pittsburgh Savings Bank, filed a bill in equity against Michael Maginn and others, shareholders, for a dissolution of the bank, for a receiver, and for an account; and on November 22, 1879, B. C. Christy was appointed the receiver. Among the assets of the bank was cer-. tain real estate, to secure possession of which the receiver brought ejectment, at No. 211 January Term 1881, against Bella H. Y. Sill et all. Before the final determination of this ejectment, it was compromised, the receiver being made a trustee for himself and the defendants in the ejectment, to sell the land and distribute the proceeds according to a certain method. On April 28,1888, to No. 180J July Term 1888, Mr. Christy, as trustee, filed an account of the fund realized by him from the sale of the land, amounting to 112,486.55, and on June 15, 1888, Mr. Magnus Pflaum was appointed auditor to distribute the fund. Subsequently, of the fund for distribution, $11,295.30 was awarded to B. C. Christy, receiver of the Pittsburgh S. Bank. On September 8, 1888, on motion of Mr. A. M. Brown for creditors of the Pittsburgh S.- Bank, but, as it Avas claimed, without notice, and notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings at No. 150 January Term 1880, in which the receiver was appointed, and that the order appointing Mr. S. A. Me-Clung general master in that case was still in force, the court made an order that the order appointing Mr. Pflaum auditor be enlarged by adding thereto the further direction that the said auditor should report a distribution of the fund, to wit, $11,295.30, in the hands of the receiver. It was in the di
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
constructive discharge, hostile work environment, reverse racial discrimination, negligent hiring/retention/supervision
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant school district for her alleged constructive discharge from employment as a teacher. The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for approximately twenty-four years when she resigned from her position in August, 2019. On December 19, 2019, she filed an age discrimination complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). There- after, the CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction over the complaint, and the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant, alleging a violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.), constructive discharge, and breach of contract. The plaintiff, who was seventy years old, claimed that she was forced to resign after the defendant created an intolerable work environment by marginalizing and unfairly criticizing her because it wanted to replace her with a younger teacher. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that it was untimely and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, and, thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging only constructive discharge. In that complaint, the plaintiff added allegations related to a report issued by the defendant on June 10, 2019, in which it acknowledged that an assistant principal had copied certain portions of the plaintiff's prior evaluations into her 2016–2017 school year evaluation and recommended a review of adminis- trators' practices of referencing evaluations from prior years. The defen- dant filed a motion to strike, which the trial court granted, finding that the plaintiff's complaint to the CHRO was untimely pursuant to the 180 day limitation period set forth in the applicable statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 46a-82 (f)), because the plaintiff had failed to identify conduct relating to an intolerable working environment that had persisted to June 22, 2019, o
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.