Com., Human Relations Commission v. Transit Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1978 |
| Citation | 478 Pa. 430,387 A.2d 58 |
| Parties | , 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1300, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8591 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, v. TRANSIT CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Elisabeth S. Shuster, Pa. Human Relations Com., Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the Commonwealth Court, affirming in part an order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (Commission) directed against Transit Casualty Insurance Company (Transit).
Transit, by its sales and underwriting agent, Markel Service, Inc. (Markel), had issued commercial motor vehicle liability insurance to Beverage Transportation, Inc. (Beverage), effective from February 18, 1970, to February 18, 1972. Nettie M. Renoll, employed by Beverage as a vehicle driver, was involved in an accident on March 18, 1970, during the period of Transit's insurance coverage, while driving a vehicle of Beverage. Markel notified Beverage that Renoll's insurance coverage would terminate on July 10, 1970, and that she should be relieved of all driving duties by that date. As a result, Renoll's employment with Beverage was terminated on July 10, 1970.
Section 5(a) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 955(a), makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge an employee because of that person's sex.
In March, 1972, after its policy with Transit was terminated, Beverage rehired Renoll as a truck driver. Renoll's complaint against Beverage was then withdrawn.
On October 15, 1973, the Commission conducted hearings on Renoll's complaint against Transit. On July 29, 1974, the Commission concluded that Transit, through its agent Markel, had withdrawn insurance coverage for Renoll because of her sex and that Transit's conduct "coerced and compelled Beverage to discharge Renoll." Transit was ordered to cease and desist from such activities and to pay Renoll damages of $12,147.03 with interest for lost pay from July 10, 1970, through February 18, 1972.
Transit filed an appeal in the Commonwealth Court which affirmed the Commission's order but modified the amount of the award to $11,499.49 with interest. We granted allocatur.
The central issue is the Commission's authority to order a "respondent," who is not the employer of the complainant, to compensate complainant through the payment of lost earnings where that respondent has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice causing the loss suffered.
However, before reaching that issue, we must determine whether the Commission properly concluded Transit committed an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the Act.
As stated in Section 10 of the Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 960, our scope of review is governed by the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, § 1, 71 P.S. § 1710.1 et seq. (Hereinafter: 71 P.S. § ---), which permits us to set aside or modify the Commission's adjudication only if it "is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law" or if "any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence." 71 P.S. § 1710.44. See also PHRC v. Chester School District, 427 Pa. 157, 233 A.2d 290 (1967) and Gorchov Brothers Real Estate v. HRC, 14 Pa.Cmwlth. 310, 321 A.2d 405 (1974).
Transit contends the Commission's finding of an unlawful discriminatory practice is not supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrates otherwise.
The Commission made the following relevant findings of fact:
a. During the relevant period, at least four male Beverage drivers under twenty-five had been involved in accidents for which they were deemed liable and had not been canceled by Respondent. Respondent offered no acceptable explanation for the disparity in treatment between these males and the Complainant, the sole female driver employed . . .. Complainant was the only driver canceled after an accident during the period relevant hereto. . . .
In Finding of Fact No. 12, the Commission determined Markel's decision to exclude Renoll was made with knowledge of her sex. Transit argues, to the contrary, that Markel's decision was made on June 10, 1970, and, at that time, Markel believed Renoll was a male driver under twenty-five years of age. The record supports the Commission's finding.
In a letter dated June 1, 1970, Markel was informed Renoll was twenty-three years old. On June 10, 1970, Markel ordered "Mr." Renoll to be removed as a driver "unless the insured has some redeeming features to offer on this individual . . . " (Emphasis added.) On June 12, 1970, information regarding Renoll's high qualifications and performance as a driver, as well as a correction of her sex identity, was transmitted to Markel. On July 2, 1970, Beverage was advised Renoll had been removed from coverage and should be relieved of all driving duties.
This correspondence provides substantial evidence from which the Commission could find the June 10 decision was not final and was, in fact, contingent upon receipt of more information. Thus, the Commission's conclusion that Markel's decision to exclude Renoll was made with knowledge of her sex is supported by substantial evidence.
Finding of Fact No. 13 refers to Transit's asserted policy of excluding the high-risk-under-twenty-five year old driver from coverage. Transit contends its decision to exclude Renoll from coverage was based upon this policy rather than upon her sex identity.
Transit's witness, Arthur S. Wilson, testified the underwriting policy of Markel was to relieve from driving duties any driver of any of its insured who was involved in an accident and was under twenty-five years of age. This testimony was reinforced by Transit's letter of September 20, 1970, which reiterated the high-risk-under-twenty-five policy and added that the cause of the accident and the degree of the insured driver's responsibility were factors to be considered in applying the policy.
The Commission rejected this explanation for cancellation of Renoll's coverage. In doing so, the Commission relied on the testimony of one of its own investigators that the insurance coverage of four under-twenty-five male drivers for Beverage had not been canceled, even though each had also been involved in accidents. While two of these accidents may not have come to Markel's attention because they were covered by Beverage's collision policy with another insurance company, Markel offered no acceptable explanation for its failure to exclude the other two under-twenty-five male drivers.
Accordingly, the Commission's Finding No. 13 is supported by substantial evidence in the record: Markel did not adhere to its alleged underwriting policy because the decision to exclude Renoll from coverage was based not upon such a policy but upon her sex identity. Thus, the Commission's Finding No. 14, that Transit coerced and compelled Beverage to discharge Renoll, was reasonable and must be sustained.
We now turn to the central issue in this case. Having determined Transit violated Section 5(e) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 955(e), the Commission ordered Transit to cease and desist its unlawful discriminatory practice and to pay Renoll her lost earnings for the period spanning July 10, 1970, the date of discharge, to February 18, 1972, the date on which the insurance policy between Transit and Beverage expired. 2 Transit asserts the Commission's award was not in accordance with law because the Commission has no authority to order anyone other than an employer of the complainant to pay lost earnings to that complainant.
The Commission's authority to grant relief upon a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Judge v. Allentown and Sacred Heart Hosp. Center
... ... Holland, Bethlehem, for Hartford Ins. Group ... [78 Pa.Cmwlth. 374] ... See, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Transit Casualty ... ...
-
Judge v. Allentown and Sacred Heart Hosp. Center
...rely demonstrates, however, that this proposition is inapplicable to the instant case. In Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Transit Casualty Insurance Co., 478 Pa. 430, 387 A.2d 58 (1978), the issue was whether the Human Relations Commission had the authority to order a respondent,......