U.S. Steel Supply Division of U.S. Steel Corp. v. City of Pittsburgh, Commission on Human Relations

• Decision Date: 19 February 1975
• Citation: 332 A.2d 871,16 Pa.Cmwlth. 425
• Parties: , 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1317 UNITED STATES STEEL SUPPLY DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 871

332 A.2d 871

16 Pa.Cmwlth. 425, 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1317

UNITED STATES STEEL SUPPLY DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 16, 1974.

Decided Feb. 19, 1975.

James T. Carney, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Robert B. Smith, Asst. City Sol., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., KRAMER, WILKINSON, MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.

OPINION

KRAMER, Judge.

This is an appeal by the United States Steel Supply Division of the United States Steel Corporation (Supply Division) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated November 20, 1973. The order dismissed an appeal by the Supply Division and affirmed an adjudication by the City of Pittsburgh, Commission on Human Relations (Commission). The Commission's adjudication, dated March 6, 1972, found that the Supply Division had violated section 8(a) of the Pittsburgh Human Relations Ordinance (Ordinance), 75 of 1967 of the City of Pittsburgh, as amended, by discriminating on the basis of race in dismissing an employe, Mrs. Thelma B. Davis (Davis).

Davis was employed by the Supply Division from 1966 until she was discharged on February 2, 1970. ¹ The record indicates that on February 3, 1970, Davis was discharged by the acting office manager ² following an altercation with her immediate supervisor. On February 4, 1970, Davis filed an informal complaint with the Commission. On April 13, 1970, she signed a formal complaint. A hearing was held before the Commission on June 4, 1971. Davis' testimony at the hearing indicated that she believed she was discharged because of her race. The acting office manager, who discharged Davis, testified that she was discharged 'because she couldn't get along with her co-workers or supervisors' and 'because she was insubordinate and unmanageable in her work situation.' On March 6, 1972, the Commission decided that the Supply Division had violated section 8(a) of the Ordinance in dismissing Davis and entered an order which included the following provisions:

'1. That the United States Steel Corporation, including the United States Steel Supply Division, cease and desist from discrimination on the basis of race and that Complainant be reinstated to work either at the United States Steel Supply Division or some other division office or department of the United States Steel Corporation at a comparable clerical position.

'2. That United States Steel Corporation shall immediately pay to Mrs. Thelma Davis damages for loss of wages due to the discrimination cited herein. To that end, counsel for the parties will meet and stipulate as to damages, and if a stipulation cannot be agreed upon, a further Order on damages will be entered in this proceeding.

'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Steel Supply Division proceed with an affirmative program to employ black applicants for future available positions within that division.'

On October 2, 1972, the Commission, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the March 6, 1972 order, entered a supplemental order requiring United States Steel Corporation to pay Davis $14,274.20 as 'damages for loss of wages'. The Supply Division appealed the Commission's orders to the lower court. The lower court neither took additional testimony nor received additional evidence. On November 20, 1973, the lower court issued a decision in which it held that '(t) he findings of the commission are supported by substantial, legally credible evidence . . . and its decision was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.' The court, therefore, dismissed the Supply Division's appeal.

In its appeal to this Court, the Supply Division argues that (1) it was denied due process of law when the same individuals who decided to prosecute the discrimination complaint sat on the hearing panel which adjudicated the charge brought by Davis; (2) that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (3) that the Commission's order was too broad.

In view of the fact that the lower court did not take any additional testimony or receive any additional evidence, our scope of review in this case is to determine whether the Commission abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Pittsburgh Press Employment Advertising Discrimination Appeal, 4 Pa.Cmwlth. 448, 287 A.2d 161 (1972).

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and we conclude that we must reverse because the Commission's findings of fact are not sufficient to support its conclusion that section 8(a) of the Ordinance was violated. The Commission's adjudication includes the following unnumbered findings of fact:

'Mrs. Thelma B. Davis is a black female who was employed by the United States Steel Corporation on May 5, 1966.

'Mrs. Davis had received her training at Connelly Vocational School, M.D.T.A. program, and was very highly recommended by her teachers for this employment.

'Mrs. Davis took an examination, given by the Respondent, and appeared to possess all of the necessary skills for her future employment.

'The United States Steel Supply Division of the United States Steel Corporation had never employed Negro personnel, either in clerical, secretarial, or any capacity other than laborers in the warehouse who performed menial jobs.

'The first year of Complainant's employment went without major incident, but beginning in 1966 Complainant experienced difficulties with other employees and was the victim of name calling (i.e., racial slurs) and suffered damage to personal property, the only employee to experience such.

'Complainant had, on several occasions, reported the incidents to her immediate supervisor but in all cases little or no credence was given them, with the word of the other employee taken for value.

'Complainant experienced difficulties in the Flexograph Room and was transferred to the File Room but the difficulties continued.

'On February 2, 1970, when Complainant went to the then acting manager to complain concerning damage to her boots, she was summarily dismissed from the employment of the United States Steel Supply Division.

'The Complainant was dismissed on the spot and no apparent effort was made to determine the validity of her complaint of the incident.

'Various employee conflicts apparently occurred in the office where complainant worked and the supervisor and management appeared unable or unwilling to ameliorate these employee problems. On investigation by Commission on Human Relations staff after the dismissal of the employee, it appeared that Complainant's records were kept in a different fashion than the records of other employees, and letters involving other employees, critical of Complainant, were kept in the Complainant's file.' (Emphasis added.)

The Commission concluded from these facts that the Supply Division 'in dismissing Mrs. Davis' had...