No More Dual Filing Under Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance: Jones v. Foods on First Clarifies the Rule

Another Precedent-Setting Appeal By Attorney Daniel J. Siegel

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has finally resolved years of confusion over how to “exhaust” administrative remedies for claims under Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination law, the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (PFPO). In a precedential opinion, the Court held that a plaintiff does not have to file with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR) to pursue PFPO claims in court if the plaintiff has already filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) about the same conduct. Attorney Daniel J. Siegel of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC was appellate counsel for the plaintiff.

What the Court Decided in Jones v. Foods on First

Defendants argued the plaintiff’s PFPO claims were barred because she filed only with the PHRC, not the PCHR. The Superior Court rejected that argument and expressly adopted the reasoning of Higgins v. MetLife (E.D. Pa. 2023), which read the PFPO’s text as permitting (not requiring) a complaint to the PCHR and recognized that filing with the PHRC (or EEOC) can satisfy any exhaustion requirement. The Superior Court concluded:

“The PFPO does not require a complainant to file a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission prior to filing a suit in state court if a submission relating to the same conduct has been made with the PHRC.”

The Court read Philadelphia Code § 9-1112(1) (“may make, sign and file” with the PCHR) as permissive, not mandatory, and interpreted § 9-1112(4) (which bars the PCHR from accepting a complaint when a PHRC complaint is already pending) as a procedural exclusivity rule—not a trap that forces dual filing.

Why Jones v. Foods on First Matters (Practical Takeaways)

• One filing is enough: Filing with the PHRC suffices for PFPO exhaustion. You don’t need to “dual file” with the PCHR.
• Consistency with state practice: The Court aligned PFPO practice with PHRA structure and timing, avoiding a needless choice between city and state forums.
• Litigation posture: Defense motions premised on a missing PCHR filing are now on shaky ground in Pennsylvania courts post-Jones. (Federal decisions had split; Jones resolves the rule for Pennsylvania appellate authority.)

Bottom Line

Jones v. Foods on First settles the long-running “dual filing” debate: You do not need a separate PCHR filing to bring PFPO claims in Pennsylvania courts when you’ve already filed with the PHRC. That clarity streamlines intake, preserves claims, and reduces avoidable procedural fights.

Date: August 26, 2025
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
Case: Jones v. Foods on First III, Inc., 2025 PA Super 184