Hoffman v. Ramada Inn Enterprises, Inc.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
50 F. Supp. 2d 393 (1999)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Generally, at least one named plaintiff in a Title VII employment-discrimination class-action must have exhausted applicable administrative remedies by filing a timely charge before absent class-members can “piggyback” on that charge and be part of the class. This is called the single-filing rule. Jessica Hoffman (class representative) (plaintiff), after filing administrative charges against her employer, R.I. Enterprises, Inc. (Ramada) (defendant), for hostile-work-environment sex discrimination that she and one other person allegedly suffered while working at a Ramada steak house, sought class-action certification on behalf of other women employed by Ramada who had been subject to the same hostile work environment. Because the allegations in Hoffman’s administrative charge did not go beyond her and the one other person, the charge failed to give Ramada proper notice of potential class claims, and the court denied Hoffman’s request for class certification. Hoffman motioned for reconsideration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vanaskie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
