Chicago Transit Authority v. Fair Employment Practices Commission

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: ADESKO; BURMAN, P.J., and MURPHY
• Citation: Chicago Transit Authority v. Fair Employment Practices Commission, 243 N.E.2d 638, 103 Ill.App.2d 329 (Ill. App. 1968)
• Decision Date: 16 December 1968
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 52530
• Parties: , 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2051, 1 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 502, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9954 CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant, and Wilford C. Spears, Defendant.

Page 638

243 N.E.2d 638

103 Ill.App.2d 329, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2051,

1 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 502,

1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9954

CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant and Wilford C. Spears, Defendant.

Gen. No. 52530.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Dec. 16, 1968.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendant-appellant; John J. O'Toole, Stuart D. Perlman, Chicago, of counsel.

George J. Schaller, O. R. Hamlink, Jerome F. Dixon, James A. McLendon, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

ADESKO, Justice.

This is an action for administrative review under the Administrative Review Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, Ch. 110, Par. 264 et seq., of a decision and order by the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, against the Chicago Transit Authority, hereinafter referred to as the CTA. The Commission found that the CTA had committed an unfair employment practice as defined in Section 3(a) of the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, Ch. 48, Par. 853. The Circuit Court of Cook County reversed the decision of the Commission on a finding that the Commission's order was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This appeal is taken by the Commission from the Circuit Court's order.

On March 30, 1964, a charge was filed with the Commission by Wilford C. Spears, charging his employer, the CTA, with an unfair employment practice under the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Act. On November 30, 1965, the Commission, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act, issued a formal complaint of unfair employment practice on behalf of Spears. The CTA answered the complaint denying that it had committed any unfair employment practice as charged. In substance, the charge filed with the Commission and the formal complaint issuing therefrom alleged that Spears, a switchman employed by the CTA for over ten years, was involved in his first accident on February 28, 1964, and as a result of this accident he was discharged. Subsequently, on March 25, 1964, he was reinstated as a conductor, a demotion in job classification. As to the matter of discipline, Spears alleged that he had been subjected to more severe disciplinary action than other employees of the CTA who had only received token punishment in accidents more severe than his.

Pursuant to notice, the cause was set for public hearing before a Hearing Examiner of the Commission on January 10, 1966. Throughout the proceedings, both parties were represented by counsel. They were given full opportunity to offer evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, submit briefs and present oral argument. After extensive hearings, the Hearing Examiner found that the CTA did violate Section 3(a) of the Fair Employment Practices Act, and his report recited that his findings and conclusions were based upon a preponderance of the evidence as required under Section 8(f) of the Act. The order and decision of the Commission also recited that it was based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

The CTA filed Administrative Review proceedings, pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Review Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1967, Ch. 110, Par. 264 et seq., as provided for in Section 10 of the Fair Employment Practices Act. In the complaint in the Administrative Review proceeding, plaintiff CTA charged that the allegations of Spears' complaint filed with the Commission of one or more unfair labor practices against him were not sustained or proved by a preponderance of the evidence; that a preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the discipline meted out to Spears was more severe than that meted out to other CTA employees for similar or greater accidents; that the Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded to the contrary; and that the findings of the Commission were unreasonable and arbitrary.

The CTA argued before the trial court that the Commission's order and decision was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The court, agreeing with the CTA, found that a preponderance of the evidence did not support the findings and conclusions of the Commission that Wilford C. Spears was discriminated against and received a more severe disciplinary penalty than other employees would have received; that a preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the CTA committed any unfair labor practice against Wilford C. Spears; and that the Commission's order and decision were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The judgment order of the court then adjudged that the order of the Commission be reversed in whole without remandment. The Commission now appeals that order to this Court.

Defendant raised the following issues for determination: (1) Whether it is proper to reverse an administrative decision under the Administrative Review Act on the basis that it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence or that it is against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (2) whether the administrative decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. A brief review of the evidence submitted by the parties to the Hearing Examiner reveals that the evidence was principally work records of nineteen other CTA employees involved in 'chargeable' accidents and rule infractions, and the testimony of Spears and others concerning the accident of February 28, 1964. The work records were presented in order to establish a comparison of the disciplinary action taken by the CTA against these other employees due to their involvement in accidents and that disciplinary action extended to Wilford C. Spears.

The accident occurred in the CTA's 61st Street Yard, at about 2:50 p.m., on a clear, dry day. Spears testified that he had moved a four-car train into the yard, preparatory to moving it across the lead track through a switching operation which would put the train on another set of tracks for subsequent use later. Stopping the train after moving it in position just far enough to clear the lead track, he walked through the four cars to the south end of the train, the end nearest the lead track, and entered the motorman's cab. He put the window down, waited for the switch to be thrown, put his head out of the window and looked to the side and the rear as far as he could. As far back as he could see, the upper portion of the lead track was clear and there was no movement upon it. Spears started the train and began moving toward the switch, but did not look around once he had started moving the train, and was not aware of another train moving toward him. Spears heard a noise and quickly made an emergency stop. Another train was coming off the main line into the lead track and the two trains collided, this other train striking the car Spears occupied. The car was tilted to one side and derailed; there were no injuries, and the damages were under $1,000.00. The car was rerailed and the scene of the accident cleared within a short time. The operator of the other train was Lester E. Love. Both Spears and Love were held equally responsible for the accident, and both were discharged and then reinstated as conductors only. Spears lost twenty-three days pay and was permanently disqualified as a switchman.

Mr. Love was called as a witness by the CTA. He testified that at the time of the accident he was traveling along the upper lead track at between five and ten miles per hour, and that the two trains made contact by the head end of the Love front car hitting right in back of the Spears' motorman's cab. Love's motorman's cab was on the right side of his front car, the side away from the yard track on which Spears was approaching the puzzle switch. When questioned about the accident at the 61st Street Superintendent's office after the accident, Spears told Mr. O'Connor, station superintendent, that he had a blind spot coming off track '2-above.' Spears also claimed to have the right of way, because he stated that before he could see Love's train coming into the lead or entering the lead he, Spears, had his train far enough out to have the lead blocked.

The Hearing Examiner concluded that the CTA supervisory personnel could, as they did, reasonably determine that there was a failure of alertness on the part of Spears, and a degree of fault on his part, that justified some measure of disciplinary action. In other words, the CTA did not act arbitrarily in finding some fault and in determining that some disciplinary action was warranted. The controlling question, in the opinion of the Hearing Examiner, was whether the discipline meted out to Spears, when compared with the severity of discipline meted out in other instances of employee accident cases adduced by both parties, indicates, by a preponderance of the evidence, discriminatory action against Spears by the CTA, which therefore constituted an unfair employment practice within the meaning of the Fair Employment Practices Act.

Spears and his counsel caused the CTA to produce and have placed in the record the work records of seven CTA employees. The CTA, to counter Spears' charge, similarly placed in evidence the work records of twelve more of its employees. The purpose of tendering these work records was to make a comparison of the severity of the accident and the disciplinary action taken in various accident situations as compared with the discipline given to Spears as a result of his accident. The accidents disclosed by the work records were not the subject of any oral testimony by any of the employees involved or the witnesses to those accidents. There was nothing in evidence other than the...