“[T]he exclusive remedy provision [of Subsection 962(b) of the PHRA] aims at preventing a person aggrieved by the violation of the act from commencing several different actions for relief. It does not bar another party from starting an action based on a claim that relief granted under the act is unconstitutional as to him.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he exclusive remedy provision [of Subsection 962(b) of the PHRA] aims at preventing a person aggrieved by the violation of the act from commencing several different actions for relief. It does not bar another party from starting an action based on a claim that relief granted under the act is unconstitutional as to him.”
- “[T]he exclusive remedy provision [of Subsection 962(b
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concubbing Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I would vacate that part of the decree that implements a new plan of integration after the chancellor determined that the litigation was moot. The chancellor’s action in regard to this plan is in no way res judicata on the parties or stare decisis on the plan’s validity and is therefore of no force or. effect. If and when the School Board adopts the suggested plan, the appellant will have an opportunity to attack its propriety.
I concur only in the affirmance of the dismissal of the petition for preliminary injunction.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this opinion.