Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp. Zinc Smelting Division

Decision Date13 May 1976
Parties, 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1350, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,934 PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. ST. JOE MINERALS CORPORATION ZINC SMELTING DIVISION, Respondent.
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Robert W. Hartland, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, for respondent.



BLATT, Judge.

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (Commission) has, in this action, petitioned the Court to enforce an order of the Commission which directs the St. Joe Minerals Corporation, Zinc Smelting Division (St. Joe), the respondent, to answer written interrogatories issued during the course of an investigation of the Company. Before reaching the merits of the petition, however, it is necessary to set forth briefly the factual background.

On August 21, 1972, the Commission, acting on its own initiative, served St. Joe with a formal complaint charging the company with discriminatory practices in violation of Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 1 (Act), 43 P.S. § 955. This was one of many nearly identical complaints filed against various employers which were selected as 'targets' for investigation on the basis of statistics compiled by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. United States Steel Corporation, --- Pa. ---, 325 A.2d 910 (1974) a divided Supreme Court affirmed the decision of this Court 2 in which we held that one of these complaints failed to set forth the particulars of the alleged discriminatory practices as required by Section 9 of the Act, 43 P.S. § 959. In an attempt to meet this statutory requirement here, the Commission twice amended its original complaint against St. Joe to include employment statistics of St. Joe which were obtained from the EEOC. Subsequent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint the Commission also requested St. Joe to answer a set of written interrogatories 3 in an attempt to discover detailed information bearing upon the alleged discriminatory practices. St. Joe refused to comply with this request and on June 30, 1975 the Commission formally ordered St. Joe to submit complete answers within fifteen days. Again St. Joe refused and the Commission has now petitioned this Court to enforce its order of June 30.

The respondent contends that the Court lacks statutory authority to entertain the Commission's petition and that in any event the interlocutory nature of the Commission's order precludes enforcement at this time.

It is clear, of course, that Section 401 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, 4 17 P.S. § 211.401 vests this Court with original jurisdiction to entertain proceedings initiated by the Commonwealth. See Pennsylvania Crime Commission Petitions, 446 Pa. 152, 285 A.2d 494 (1971) and, therefore, as a threshold matter we must consider the investigatory powers of the Commission which the Commission alleges will support the instant proceeding.

It must be remembered 'that the power of an administrative agency must be sculptured precisely so that its operational figure strictly resembles its legislative model.' Community College of Delaware County v. Fox, 20 Pa.Cmwlth. 335, 351, 342 A.2d 468, 478 (1975); Zamantakis v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 107, 308 A.2d 612 (1973). Here, Section 9 of the Act, 43 P.S. § 959, provides, Inter alia, that the Commission, upon its own initiative, may file a complaint 'which shall state the name and address of the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency alleged to have committed the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of, and Which shall set forth the particulars thereof . . ..' (Emphasis added.) The complaint held to be insufficient by this standard in United States Steel, supra, amounted to no more than an expanded restatement of Section 5(a) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 955(a). 5 The Second Amended Complaint now before us charged that St. Joe discriminates 'in its hiring of Blacks and females and fails or refuses to utilize recruitment sources which will, or may reasonably be expected to, provided it with Black and female applicants.' By itself, of course, this allegation represents a mere conclusion of law, but it is considerably more specific than the broad recitation of unlawful practices alleged in the original complaint held to be insufficient in United States Steel. More importantly, the Commission has set forth in the Second Amended Complaint qualitative and quantitative information concerning the employment of minority groups and women by St. Joe all of which demonstrate employment imbalances. The Commission has indicated by numerical and percentage data that the total number of minority individuals employed by the company suggests possible discriminatory hiring, placement, and promotion practices. This statistical data was sufficient, in our view, to have given the commission 'reason to believe' 6 that St. Joe had been engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices and to have met the particularity requirements of the Act.

We must turn, therefore, to the question of whether or not the Commission has power to issue written interrogatories in the course of its investigation of the charges alleged in the Second Amended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Waller v. Powers Dept. Store
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1984
    ...discretionary power to promulgate discovery rules to carry out its purposes), and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp. Zinc Smelting Div., 24 Pa.Commw. 455, 357 A.2d 233 (1976), aff'd, 476 Pa. 302, 382 A.2d 731 (1978), (holding that the Human Relations Commissio......
  • Com., Dept. of Labor and Industry v. Altemose Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • January 20, 1977
    ...and to the secretary.' (Emphasis added.) Consequently, defendants' reliance on Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp. Zinc Smelting Division, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 455, 357 A.2d 233 (1976), for the proposition that the Secretary is not empowered to make Sua sponte inspect......
  • Com., Dept. of Labor and Industry v. Altemose Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • January 20, 1977
    ... ... 277COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Paul J. Smith, ... defendants' reliance on Pennsylvania Human Relations ... Commission v. St. Joe Minerals p. Zinc Smelting Division, ... 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 455, 357 ... United States Steel Corp., 10 ... Pa.Cmwlth. 408, 311 A.2d 170 (1973), ... ...
  • Com. by Packel v. Shults
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • August 17, 1976
    ... ... 129 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Acting By Attorney General Israel PACKEL v ... Crime Commission v. Nacrelli, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 551, 577 (1972) ... Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe ... Minerals poration Zinc Smelting Division, --- Pa.Cmwlth ... ---, ---, ... Treatise 221 (1958), Citing Endicott Johnson Corp. v ... Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 509, 63 S.Ct ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT