Court Opinion

ID: 9757387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:38:14.993917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:38.867873
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I write separately as, while I concur fully with the majority that appellants cannot prevail on the merits in an action for wrongful discharge, I respectfully disagree with the majority view that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (P.H.R.A.), 43 P.S. 951 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. do not provide *516the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge based on sexual discrimination in the work place, even when couched as a tort claim.
From the appellants’ reasoning, it is evident that the only actionable complaint available to them has to do with sexual harassment in the work place. The majority has concluded that a wrongful discharge action may be pursued, despite the fact that sexual discrimination is one of the categories covered by the P.H.R.A. In its analysis of the Act, in a literal reading of section 962(b), the majority focuses on the words “when invoked, be exclusive and the final determination ...”, the sentence, “If such [sic] complainant institutes any action based on such grievance [sic] without resorting to the procedure provided in this act, he [sic] may not subsequently resort to the procedure herein ” ... and in subsection 962(c), “if a complaint [sic] invokes the procedures set forth in this act, that individual’s right of action in the courts of the Commonwealth shall not be foreclosed.” Majority Slip Op. at 1380 (emphasis added in majority Opinion). In doing so, it concludes the P.H.R.A. did not provide for exclusivity of remedy in sexual discrimination cases.
The majority cites to Daly v. School District of Darby Twp., 434 Pa. 286, 252 A.2d 638 (1969) in holding that a party can choose alternative remedies; additionally, “[o]nce the party elects his or her remedy, the chosen path becomes exclusive.” Majority Slip Op. at 1380 citing Fye v. Central Transportation Inc., 487 Pa. 137, 409 A.2d 2 (1979). In Daly, the appellant was not a party in the original decision by the School Board to resolve a racial discrimination matter and, therefore, her action to protect her constitutional rights denied by an action of the Board and the Human Relations Commission was not “invoked” within the meaning of section five. (Section 5 of the Human Relations Act as amended is 43 P.S. § 955.)
Reliance on Fye is equally dubious as that case held that once the P.H.R.A. proceeding was invoked, even when the party then withdrew the proceeding, she was prohibited *517from instituting a case in court. It went on to say in dicta that the General Assembly did not withdraw the other remedies that might be available depending upon the nature of the injury sustained.
Prior to 1974, a complainant invoking the procedure of this Act was barred from seeking any other remedy for redress of the asserted grievance, and this rule was without exception. By the 1974 amendment to section 12 of the Human Relations Act, a narrow exception was included in the rule of exclusivity. Section 12(c) provided that the rights of a complainant invoking the procedure under the P.H.R.A. would not be foreclosed from resort to the courts, “if within (1) year after filing of a complaint with the Commission, the Commission dismisses complaint or has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the complainant is a party____” (Section 12(c) of the Human Relations Act as amended is 43 P.S. § 962(c).)
The reading I find most significant is that of Justice Nix in Fye, supra, 487 Pa. at 142, 409 A.2d at 5. In response to an argument that the statute should be broadly construed to minimize the exclusivity section, the Court said:
In response we note that this language appeared in the section [as to liberal construction] before there was an exception to the rule of exclusivity. A liberal construction for the accomplishment of the purposes of the act is not synonymous with a relaxation of the rule of exclusivity for the benefit of a complainant. It is clear from the legislation that the General Assembly was of the view that the procedures provided by the act represented the most effective approach to the problem of discrimination. Thus, the language relied upon by appellant cannot properly be construed as authorizing a broad reading of the exception to the rule of exclusivity.
Further, in commenting on the weight to be given the exclusivity section, Justice Nix stated:
Obviously, the rule of exclusivity was of high priority in the legislative scheme; as first promulgated, the act provided for no exception to the rule, after a number of *518years of experience the General Assembly was willing only to provide two carefully defined situations. This history provides no basis for a judicial finding of an implicit legislative intent to extend the expressly unambiguous perimeters of the terms of the 12(c) exceptions.
Id., 487 Pa. at 142, 409 A.2d at 5. It would appear that the Supreme Court was firm on exclusivity and, at worst, vague-as to the permissible suits outside the P.H.R.A.
The view proposed by the majority will open every discharge, where discrimination may be alleged, to court review on a wrongful discharge theory for rights which were created by the P.H.R.A. This will undermine the stated purpose of the act, present a flood of litigation and deny the administrative process which the legislature decided is the most effective means to deal with a social ill that permeates many aspects of our society.
I believe the trial court was correct in relying on Wolk v. Saks Fifth Ave., 728 F.2d 221 (3rd Cir.1984) which held that in each case of wrongful discharge based on violation of public policy, the .Pennsylvania courts failed to find a violation of public policy and, therefore, a cognizable common law remedy, where there existed some alternative form of relief. In Sola v. Lafayette College, 804 F.2d 40 (3rd Cir.1986), the third circuit, although cognizant of Fye, supra, opted for according respect for the administrative procedures established by the Pennsylvania legislature and refused to recognize a new cause of action designed to further Pennsylvania anti-discrimination policies. In Carney v. Pennsylvania Human Relation Commission, 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 10, 404 A.2d 760 (1979), the Commonwealth Court held the Act did not provide for alternative remedies but that the court, combined with the P.H.R.A., was the remedy and that the P.H.R.A. must be pursued as a condition prerequisite to an accrual of a right of action in the Pennsylvania courts. In Householder v. Kensington Mfg. Co., 360 Pa.Super. 290, 520 A.2d 461 (1987), this Court followed these precedents in holding that an action for *519wrongful discharge, based on discrimination of a handicapped person, was barred by the P.H.R.A.
In Daly, supra, the action was not “invoked” within the meaning of section five and, therefore, permissible. In this case, the action which the majority would permit is one created by section five (§ 955). It is clear, as pointed out in Fye, that the legislature intended to open the exclusivity aspect of the P.H.R.A. only to the degree necessary to avoid allowing an aggrieved to commence several different actions for relief. Obviously there are a number of ways a party may seek relief, including proceedings under the Federal Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act, § 1983 and local Human Relations ordinances pursuant to section 962.1. It is even arguable that if the sexual harassment involved touching or exposure, civil assault or criminal charges could be filed and not be barred by exclusivity under the P.H.R.A.
The majority would find that while there is a right to bring an action for wrongful discharge, under these facts, the action for wrongful discharge cannot prevail, nor would the allegations support an action for “emotional distress”. All that remains is some form of sexual discrimination, which is a creation of the P.H.R.A. and, therefore, totally within the exclusivity clause of 962(b). The majority holding necessarily requires and permits alternative actions for sexual discrimination (and all other § 955 categories), so long as they are captioned wrongful discharge, to be brought either in the courts or before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The exceptions propounded to the P.H.R.A., in my view of the Act and the case law, never intended this to be the case. It must be remembered that the predecessor title to the P.H.R.A. was the Fair Labor Employment act, and its intent was to curtail discrimination in the work place. Since wrongful discharge in Pennsylvania is founded on breach of contract, and no remedy is available for discrimination outside of contract, where discrimination is the basis for termination outside of a contract, the sole remedy is under the P.H.R.A. Indeed the review of this case on the merits, by the majority, in view of the very stringent stand taken by our courts in *520wrongful discharge cases, would indicate a proceeding under the P.H.R.A., is the only effective proceeding.
Under these circumstances, upon remand, I am at a loss as to what the trial court may do other than to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Now that appellants cannot prevail under their wrongful discharge theory, they are also precluded from what might have been an effective action under the P.H.R.A. The powers given to the Human Relations Commission are broad enough to require reemployment, payment of back wages and other specifically tailored relief to deal with discrimination, when no relief would be available in a civil action. The expertise and investigative powers of the Commission provide a superior vehicle for ascertaining the validity of the claim and assuring that justice be done and preventing repetition of the wrongful behavior by the employer. I believe the majority has gone astray, and unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise, upon direct consideration of this issue, we should not reverse the precedent so well established.
CAVANAUGH, J., joins.