With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". level employees. 559 A.2d at 918. Plaintiff brought an action in the trial court seeking damages for wrongful discharge, without first making a claim pursuant to the PHRA. The trial court held that the PHRC had initial jurisdiction over the matter because it involved firings in connection with sex harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Because plaintiff had not sought redress through the PHRC before turning to the courts, the trial court dismissed her claims. The Superior Court reversed the trial court, holding that the administrative remedies available through the PHRC did not prevent plaintiff from seeking judicial remedies based upon common law rights. In so holding, the Superior Court expressly overruled its prior decision of Householder, 360 Pa.Super. 290, 520 A.2d 461 (<HOLDING>). On appeal, this Court viewed the decision in

A: holding that a wrongful discharge claim is not available given the availability of title yii remedies
B: holding that because the fha explicitly provides that an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust parallel administrative remedies provided through hud before commencing a federal action it would seem logical that if an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust hud remedies before filing a federal action he or she should not have to exhaust local remedies
C: holding that to assert a claim for wrongful discharge from employment that is cognizable under the phra an aggrieved party must utilize administrative remedies available through the phrc before asserting a cause of action in court
D: recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge
C.