Vol. LVII Allentown, PA Friday, September 2, 2016 No. 10

72 Pages·2016·6.43 MB·English

Vol. LVII Allentown, PA Friday, September 2, 2016 No. 10
1
THE COURT
The Hon. Edward D. Reibman, President Judge
The Hon. Carol K. McGinley, Judge
The Hon. Robert L. Steinberg, Judge
The Hon. J. Brian Johnson, Judge
The Hon. Kelly L. Banach, Judge
The Hon. James T. Anthony, Judge
The Hon. Maria L. Dantos, Judge
The Hon. Michele A. Varricchio, Judge
The Hon. Douglas G. Reichley, Judge
The Hon. Daniel K. McCarthy, Judge
The Hon. Alan M. Black, Senior Judge
LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL
(USPS 309560)
Owned and Published by
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF LEHIGH COUNTY
1114 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18102
www.lehighbar.org
HON. WILLIAM H. PLATT, President
PATRICK J. REILLY, President-Elect
MICHELLE M. FORSELL, Vice President
JAMES J. KOzUCH, Secretary
SARAH M. JOLLY, Treasurer
SUSAN G. MAURER, Historian
THOMAS F. TRAUD, JR., Law Journal Committee
RAY BRIDGEMAN, Executive Director
GRAIG M. SCHULTz, Case Editor
Copyright © 2016 Bar Association of Lehigh County
The Lehigh Law Journal is published every Friday. All legal notices must be
submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the
advertiser. Neither the Law Journal nor the printer will assume any respon-
sibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make
any changes in content.
The Law Journal makes no representation as to the quality of services offered by
any advertiser in this publication.
Legal notices must be received at 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102,
before 12 noon the preceding Tuesday. Telephone [phone]. Advance
issues $100.00 per year. Single copies $2.00. Payment of annual dues to the
Bar As sociation of Lehigh County includes year’s subscription to Lehigh Law
Journal.
Printed at 206 S. Keystone Ave., Sayre PA 18840
Periodical postage paid at Allentown, PA 18102 and
at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Lehigh Law
Journal, 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102.
2
STUCK IN A CASE?
Lawyers often reach an impasse in litigation and face
common problems: Where do I go from here? What is
the best tactic? Do I have the right experts?
Recently retired from a successful law practice,
I now share a lifetime of litigation experience
through CONSULTING services to lawyers, as
well as Mediation and Arbitration.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CLYDE BARTEL
Call:( ) Email:
610 360-6284 • [email protected]

Office space available in multi-attorney office suite—great for
sole practitioner or satellite office. Great location in downtown
Allentown. Close to courthouse. Recently renovated space with high-
speed internet. Includes kitchen access. Handicap accessible. Space
available inmediately. Please contact—Craig Pijut [phone].
8-26; 9-2, 9, 16
3
4
Oaktree Advisors Welcomes
Jane Kapinas and Ben Tenaglia
Jane A. Kapinas
Vice President • Trust Representative
(610) 882–5670 Ext. 208
Jane joined Oaktree Advisors in 2016
with more than 30 years of experience in
trust operations and trust administration.
Jane serves as the intermediary between
her client’s legal professionals and the
trust company. She maintains a close personal and professional
relationship with her clients, allowing her to understand each
family’s unique needs.
Benjamin M. Tenaglia, III
Vice President • Portfolio Manager
(610) 882–5670 Ext. 212
Ben brings more than 30 years of trust and
investment experience to Oaktree Advisors.
He is responsible for setting investment
strategy, selecting appropriate investments
and allocating investments to properly
meet each client’s personal needs. Ben helps individuals, trusts,
estates, and charitable organizations determine the asset
allocation that puts them in the best position to realize their
financial objectives.
Both Jane and Ben are proud to be part of the local Lehigh
Valley community. They live here, work here and volunteer
their time here.
Find out how they can help you and your clients with truly
personalized trust services.
One West Broad St., Suite 406
Bethlehem, PA 18018
oaktree-online.com
5
The BALC Facebook page is
updated regularly with meeting reminders and event
notices, and includes photo albums, discussion
boards, links, and much more. “Like” us at
www.facebook.com/BarAssociationLehighCounty
6
7
94 Sule vs. Echenberg et al.
MELISSA SULE, APPELLANT vs. ROBERT J.
ECHENBERG, M.D., WOMEN’S HEALTH,
PELVIC PAIN, AND SEXUAL WELLNESS, P.C.
AND ECHENBERG INSTITUTE FOR PELVIC
PAIN AND SEXUAL PAIN, P.C., APPELLEES
Employment Discrimination—Retaliation—Wrongful
Termination—Serious Medical Condition—Disability—
Accommodations—Motion for Summary Judgment—Failure to
Exhaust Administrative Remedies—Lack of Jurisdiction.
The Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and held that the
plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies when she failed to timely file her
complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Without a timely filed
complaint, the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff ’s claims.
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsyl-
vania—Civil Division. No. 2014-C-3549. Melissa Sule, Appellant
vs. Robert J. Echenberg, M.D., Women’s Health, Pelvic Pain, and
Sexual Wellness, P.C. and Echenberg Institute for Pelvic
Pain and Sexual Pain, P.C., Appellees.
Michael e. alpago, esquire and george s. Kounoupis,
esquire, on behalf of Appellant, Melissa Sule.
FredericK e. charles, esquire, on behalf of Appellees,
Robert J. Echenberg, M.D., Women’s Health, Pelvic Pain, and
Sexual Wellness, P.C., and Echenberg Institute for Pelvic and
Sexual Pain, P.C.
Varricchio, J., December 10, 2015. This Opinion is filed in
support of our September 17, 2015 Order granting Appellees’ Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. This is an employment discrimination
and retaliation case arising out of Appellant’s March 25, 2013
termination of employment with Women’s Health, Pelvic Pain and
Sexual Wellness, P.C. (WHPPSW), and Echenberg Institute for
Pelvic and Sexual Pain, P.C. (Institute).1 Appellant, a medical re-
ceptionist and office administrator, alleges that she was diagnosed
1 Appellant’s Compl., ¶¶28-29. The Institute was formed as a Pennsylvania Corpo-
ration after Appellant’s employment with WHPPSW had ended. Appellees’ Ans., ¶10. The
Institute was not a named defendant in Appellant’s initial charge with the PHRC in June
2013. Summary Judgment is appropriate in favor of the Institute for the same reasons
Summary Judgment is appropriate in favor of Dr. Echenberg and WHPPSW.
8
Lehigh 7-17 op
Sule vs. Echenberg et al. 95
with a serious medical condition2 in January of 2013.3 Appellant
alleges that on or about February 7, 2013, she specifically and
expressly notified WHPPSW and Dr. Echenberg of this diagnosed
serious medical condition and disability.4 Appellant further alleges
that she received from WHPPSW and Dr. Echenberg appropriate
medical leave for surgery to treat her serious medical condition
and disability and recovery leave from February 20, 2013 to March
25, 2013.5 Appellant then alleges that when she contacted
WHPPSW and Dr. Echenberg on March 25, 2013, to request
medically required accommodations for her return to work, she
was terminated because of her disability or as a result of her taking
leave as an accommodation for the medical condition and disabil-
ity and seeking and requesting additional accommodations from
her employers.6 Thus, Appellant asserts that she has been dis-
criminated against under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,
hereinafter the PHRA, as the reason given for her termination,
“they no longer needed her,” was merely a pretext.7 Appellant
claims that at all relevant times, she was “a qualified individual with
a disability and able to do her job with or without reasonable ac-
commodations” and that her proposed accommodations were not
“unduly burdensome to WHPPSW and [Dr.] Echenberg.”8 As a
result of this wrongful termination, Appellant claims that she has
suffered back-pay and front-pay losses, as well as emotional, psy-
chological and physical distress and humiliation, along with suffer-
ing career, professional and job opportunity impairment resulting
in a loss of earnings and earning capacity.9
In her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Ap-
peal, Appellant raises nine matters from which the following is
taken verbatim:10
2 A brain aneurysm. See Appellant’s Reply to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A.
3 Id. at ¶23.
4 Id. at ¶24.
5 Id. at ¶¶25-28.
6 Id. at ¶29-34.
7 Id. at ¶31, 43 Pa. C.S.A. §951 et seq.
8 Id. at ¶¶ 34-41.
9 Id. at ¶42-45.
10 Appellant’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, ¶¶1-9.
9
Lehigh 7-17 op
96 Sule vs. Echenberg et al.
1. The Court erred in ruling that Plaintiff did not
timely file a Complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Rela-
tions Commission (‘PHRC’) and therefore, did not comply
with the time limitations set forth in the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act (‘PHRA’).
2. The Court erred in ruling Plaintiff ’s PHRC Complaint
filed in June of 2013 and assigned PHRC Case number
201204579 was not processed and dismissed, despite there
being no substantiating evidence on the record for such a
determination.
3. The Court erred in holding the PHRC letter dated
September 5, 2014, which assigned Plaintiff ’s October 17,
2013 Equal Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’[sic]) Charge
a PHRC Case number of 201400574, established that Plain-
tiff ’s initial June 2013 PHRC was closed.
4. The Court erred in ruling that Plaintiff bore the bur-
den to affirmatively prove that the PHRC Complaint filed in
June of 2013 and assigned PHRC Case Number 201204579
was not dismissed when Defendant failed to come forward
with any evidence that it was.
5. The Court erred in holding that Plaintiff ’s October
17, 2013 EEOC Charge did not related[sic.] to and grow out
of the timely filed June 2013 PHRC Complaint and therefore,
was timely filed.
6. The Court erred in holding that Plaintiff ’s October
17, 2013 EEOC Charge did not perfect the timely filed June
2013 PHRC Complaint.
7. The Court misapplied Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1035.2 in ruling Defendants established that the
evidence in the record eliminated all genuine issues of mate-
rial fact.
8. The Court misapplied Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1035.3 in ruling Plaintiff did not identify evidence
in the record creating a genuine issue of material fact.
10
Lehigh 7-17 op