Chapter 23 - Compare federal and state employment discrimination laws

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is to be interpreted as identical to federal anti-discrimination laws except where there is something specifically different in its language requiring that it be treated differently. Fasold v. Justice, 409 F.3d 178, ___ n. 8 (3d Cir. 2005).

"As the district court points out the same legal standards and analysis are applicable to claims under both the ADEA and the PHRA and hence it is not uncommon to address such claims collectively." (internal quotation omitted) Glanzman v. Metropolitan Management Corp., 391 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2004).

In Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, ___ n. 3 (3d Cir. 2001), the court explained:

   The proper analysis under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is identical, as Pennsylvania courts have construed the protections of the two acts interchangeably. See, e.g., Smith v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., No. 97-1561, 1998 WL 309916, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 1998) (interpreting the two statutes concurrently in a sexual harassment case); Clark v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 885 F.Supp. 694, 714 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (same in racial discrimination cases).

In Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999), the court explained: ". . . our analysis of an ADA claim applies equally to a PHRA claim. Kelly v. Drexel University, 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996)."