[ J
- 98
- 2019 ] [MO: Dougherty, J. ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KAREN HARRISON,

Appellee

v.

HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, AND LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC.,

Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 51 MAP 2019 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at No. 365 EDA 2018 dated December 12, 2018 Affirming in Part and Vacating in Part the Order of the Lehigh County Court of C ommon Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 2016

- C

- 1469 dated December 19, 2017 and Remanding. ARGUED: November 19, 2019

CONCURRING O PINION

JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: June 16, 2020 I join the Majority in concluding that Subsection 12(b) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 962(b), permits an individual to bring a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, id. §§ 1421

- 142 8 . Additionally, I join the substance of Chief Justice Saylor’s Concurring Opinion, as I believe he correctly interprets the plain
text of S ubs ection 12(b) to allow an election of remedies when a plaintiff brings a claim that is cognizable under Section 5 of the PHRA, id. § 955. 1
While the inter pretation adopted by Chief Justice Saylor technically does not
overrule our decision in Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications , Inc. , 559 A.2d 917 (Pa.

1 I note that Chief Justice Saylor’s interpretation of S ubs ection 12(b) is at odds with that of the Superior Court and trial court in this case. See Harrison v. Health Network Labs. Ltd. P’ships , 365 EDA 2018, 2018 WL 6520982 , at *4 (Pa. Super. Dec. 12, 2018); Trial Ct. Op., 2/9/2018, at 4. But the lower courts’ ruling s with regard to any possible PHRA claim are not before this Court.[ J

- 98

- 2019 ] [MO: Dougherty, J. ]

- 2

1989) (holding that a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Section 3 of the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 953, firs t must file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission),
his interpretation nonetheless would have far

- reaching consequences for the PHRA. Chief Justice Saylor correctly notes that “ Section 5 delineates a broader list of un lawful
discrim inatory practices” than are found in Section 3. Conc. Op. at 2 (Saylor, C.J.). Indeed, it appears that at least a substantial proportion of those actions prohibited by Section 3 also are prohibited by Section 5. Section 3, per Clay , still requires that a plaintiff file his or her complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”). But if our Commonwealth’s courts are to adopt Chief Justice Saylor’s (in my view, correct) interpretation of S ubs ection 12(b), in many cases that same plainti ff could cite Section 5, rather than Section 3, as a way to file first i n a trial court and effectively evade Clay ’s requirement of exhausting remedies in the PHRC. Because the plain text of S ubs ection 12(b) clearly states that an individual aggrieved unde r Section 5 may choose to file either in the PHRC or in a trial court, we
have no choice but to conclude that this was the General Assembly’s intent

. See
Commonwealth v. Griffith , 32 A.3d 1231, 1235 ( Pa. 2011) (“ In general, the best indication of legislat ive intent is the plain text of the statute. ”). S ince we decided Clay in 1989, the
General Assembl y may have been under the impression that S ubs ection 12(b) required filing in the PHRC first . I express no view as to whether the PHRA ’s protections best can be effectuated by requiring a plaintiff first to file with the PHRC or by allowing a plaintiff to
choose between the PHR C and a trial court

. I wish only to make clear that Chief Justice Saylor’s interpretation of S ubs ection 12(b) may negate a sc heme upon which the courts (and possibly the General Assembly) ha ve relied for over thirty years. Under our system of government, the General Assembly has the sole prerogative to enact statutory law, including amendments to the PHRA. See P A

. C ONST

. art. II, § 1. Thus, while the General[ J

- 98

- 2019 ] [MO: Dougherty, J. ]

- 3

Assembly may amend the PHRA at will, Subs ection 12(b) of the PHRA currently

“ convey [s]

. . . that an aggrieved person should have an election of remedies relative to any of the unlawful discriminatory practices set forth i n Section 5. ” Conc. Op. at 2

- 3 (Saylor, C.J.). That is the result that the General Assembly has demanded, and, absent any claim that such a provision violates either of our Constitutions, we must enforce the
law as written.