§ 42.61. Dismissal of complaints.
(a) If, after investigation, the staff determines that no probable cause exists to credit the allegations of the complaint or if, during or after investigation, the staff determines that the case is untimely filed, that the case is moot, that the Commission lacks jurisdiction, that the parties have reached an agreement adjusting the complaint or that another reason exists which legally justifies the dismissal of the complaint, the staff will make a finding reflecting that determination.
(b) A staff finding will be reported to the Executive Director, who may close the case or take other action as may be deemed necessary or appropriate. The Executive Director may appoint, in writing, another staff person who is authorized to close cases in the Executive Director’s absence.
(c) Whenever a case is closed, the Commission will notify all parties in writing of the following:
(1) The closing, together with a statement of the reason therefor.
(2) The right of the complainant to request a preliminary hearing in accordance with § 42.62 (relating to request for a preliminary hearing).
(3) The right of the complainant to bring an action in the court of common pleas of the county wherein the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice took place. The duty of the complainant to serve a copy of the court complaint on the Commission, in an action so brought, at the same time the complaint is filed in court.
Source The provisions of this § 42.61 adopted August 13, 1976, effective August 14, 1976, 6 Pa.B. 1887; amended July 24, 1981, effective July 25, 1981, 11 Pa.B. 2608; amended April 19, 1991, effective April 20, 1991, 21 Pa.B. 1909; amended December 17, 1993, effective December 18, 1993, 23 Pa.B. 5897. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (156366) to (156367).
Notes of Decisions It is the Commission staff, and not the Commissioners, which is the body vested with the responsibility for determining whether probable cause exists and conducting conference and conciliation meetings. The court, therefore, determined that the Commission, which acts as the ultimate finder of fact, did not improperly commingle its prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions and deprive the company of its due process rights. George Clay Steam Fire Engine and Hose Co. v. Human Relations Commission, 639 A.2d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); appeal denied 656 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995).
Where a complainant has requested reconsideration of a determination in accordance with 16 Pa. Code § 42.62(c) and the reconsideration results in a finding of probable cause which is later changed to a finding of no probable cause, further resulting in dismissal of the case on the same grounds that had been given originally and a notification under 16 Pa. Code § 42.61(c) of the right to request reconsideration, the provision of 16 Pa. Code § 42.62(b) which states that ‘‘the request for reconsideration of the closing of a complaint may be made only once for each ground of closing’’ allows the Court of Common Pleas to take jurisdiction on appeal from the Human Relation Commission ruling even though complainant did not request reconsideration of the second denial under 16 Pa. Code § 42.61(c). Baker v. Human Relations Commission, 462 A.2d 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); order affirmed as modified 489 A.2d 1354 (Pa. 1985).
Cross References This section cited in 16 Pa. Code § 42.62 (relating to request for a preliminary hearing); and 16 Pa. Code § 42.76 (relating to rescission of finding of probable cause).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
