Span v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

• Citation: 325 A.2d 678,15 Pa.Cmwlth. 334
• Parties: Robert E. SPAN, Sr., Manager Walnut Garden Apartments, Inc., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee. WALNUT GARDEN APARTMENTS, INC., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1974
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 678

325 A.2d 678

15 Pa.Cmwlth. 334

Robert E. SPAN, Sr., Manager Walnut Garden Apartments, Inc., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS

COMMISSION, Appellee.

WALNUT GARDEN APARTMENTS, INC., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS

COMMISSION, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 4, 1974.

Decided Oct. 3, 1974.

[15 Pa.Cmwlth. 335] Gilbert E. Morcroft, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Mark A. Senick, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Pittsburgh, Sanford Kahn, Gen. Counsel, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Harrisburg, for appellee.

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

OPINION

WILKINSON, Judge.

Complainants filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission charging the appellants with refusing to rent an apartment to them because of their race, Black, in violation of Section 5(h) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. § 955(h) (Supp.1974--1975). Appellants filed an answer denying the charges and alleging that if complainants did request to rent an apartment, the request was denied either because the apartment was to be occupied by more than two persons, which was contrary to appellants' policy, or because no vacancy existed.

The matter came on for hearing and testimony was offered by complainants, as well as by a white woman who accompanied them and an employe of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Appellants offered one witness, the wife of appellant, Span. The testimony was contradictory both as to whether there was an apartment available and as to whether appellants had in fact a policy against renting to anyone who would have the apartment occupied by more than two people. The evidence of the complainants, if believed, clearly supports the charges. The Commission chose to believe the complainants and their witnesses and determined that appellants had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices as charged.

The law is quite clear that if there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings, this Court cannot disturb them. Straw v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 99, 308 A.2d 619 (1973). If believed, which it was by the Commission here, the testimony of complainants and their witnesses clearly establishes that an apartment was available and that a white applicant was told that it was available and was invited back to see it that evening with her husband and child. On the other hand, the Black applicants were told that there was no apartment available.

Having found that discriminatory practices had taken place, the Commission entered an order to which the appellants except as being beyond the Commission's authority. We must agree with the appellants with regard to some portions of the order.

We are not unmindful of the decision of our Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Association, 453 Pa. 124, 306 A.2d 881 (1973), wherein Justice Roberts sets forth the broad powers of the Commission to frame an order that not only provides 'an effective remedy for the individual aggrieved, but also to guard against and deter the same discriminatory action from recurring, to the detriment of others within the same class'. 453 Pa. at 135--136, 306 A.2d at 888. However, even mindful of those broad powers, we cannot justify and approve the following portions of the order:

'5(b) Advertise only in general circulation newspapers.' Our Supreme Court specifically authorized the requirement of advertising, but in no way did it provide that the Commission could limit advertising to newspapers and then only in newspapers of general circulation.

'7(d) The Respondents shall, for a period of two (2) years subsequent to the date of this Order, maintain a log of all applicants that apply for units managed by the Respondents. This log shall include name, address and Race of applicant, date of application, and unit sought, and in the case of rejections, the specific reason or reasons therefor. This provision is in accordance with an Affirmative Action Plan to eliminate discrimination and ensure compliance with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and any use to a contrary purpose shall be deemed a violation of this Order. (Emphasis supplied.)

'7(e) That effective on and from the date of this Order and continuing for a period of two (2) years, the Respondents shall maintain a file upon the vacation of each housing unit. This file...