Court Opinion

ID: 9719562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:55:56.459427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.141785
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the School Board’s refusal to grant appellee Cheryl Rossetti an unpaid leave of absence for purposes of breastfeeding her allergy-prone infant does not violate the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27,1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 951 et seq. (Supp.1978-79). Since I conclude that the action of the School Board constitutes an unlawful discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 5(a) of the Act, I must dissent.
While the School Board may provide for discretionary unpaid leave, 16 Pa.Code § 41.104(a),* it may not exercise its discretion in a discriminatory manner. Section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
“any employer because of . sex ... to discharge from employment such individual, or to otherwise discriminate against such individual with respect to compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, if the individual is the best able and most competent to perform the services required.”
*133The School Board’s denial of discretionary leave to appellee for purposes of medically-recommended breastfeeding clearly violates this provision.
The majority contends that “appellee has been treated no differently than any male teacher would be who had to remain at home to care for a physically or emotionally disabled newborn infant.” This position ignores the obvious reality that only women can perform the breastfeeding function. Thus when the School Board arbitrarily denies discretionary leave sought for reasons unique to women, the School Board is discriminating on the basis of sex. The Legislature expressly proscribed such discriminatory practices in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. See Cerra v. East Stroudsburg Area School District, 450 Pa. 207, 299 A.2d 277 (1973) (regulation requiring resignation of teachers at fifth month of pregnancy held to violate § 5(a)); Anderson v. Upper Bucks County Area Vocational Technical School, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 103, 373 A.2d 126 (1977) (collective bargaining provision prohibiting application of accumulated sick leave to maternity leave constituted sex discrimination).
Accordingly, I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s order which affirmed the order of reinstatement by the Secretary of Education.

 This regulation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission provides that “[n]othing in these regulations shall prohibit an employment policy that permits granting of leave for purposes of childrearing beyond the period of actual disability, but such leave shall not include payment of sickness or disability benefits.”