(Photo: Shutterstock.com)

The Pennsylvania General Assembly intended to extend the protections of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to all employees, including employees of the state's judicial system, an attorney argued before the state Supreme Court on Thursday in a case that could change the way court workers can bring discrimination and wrongful termination claims against the judiciary.

Hahalis & Kounoupis attorney David Deratzian, who represented the plaintiff in Renner v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, told the justices Thursday that the legislature intended to waive immunities for all "commonwealth" agencies—including the judiciary—when it enacted the PHRA, and, although caselaw holds that the Human Relations Commission cannot handle claims against the judiciary due to the separation of powers, the judiciary itself can adjudicate these claims under the PHRA, which, he argued, provides for greater protections for employees.

"Do court employees stand alone … as not being protected by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act?" Deratzian asked.

The case stems from charges Lehigh County parole officer Michael Renner filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission alleging unlawful discrimination by the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.

According to court documents, Renner alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment while a parole officer, and was eventually fired after taking a medical leave. Renner, court documents said, protested the termination to the Lehigh County court president judge, who was the appeals officer, but the judge refused to take action.

Renner, court records said, then became a police officer, but, he alleged that the court continued to interfere with his employment, including barring him from carrying a gun or taser in the court and providing false and misleading job references. Renner eventually sued the court, as well as county officials, but the trial court dismissed the case at the preliminary objections stage. Renner appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which issued a per curiam order in October 2018 affirming the decision.

The appeals court relied on the Supreme Court's 1999 decision in First Judicial District of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to determine that "because the Common Pleas court is a part of the judiciary, it is not subject to the PHRA."

However, according to Deratzian, the caselaw on which the Commonwealth Court based its decision has only held that the Human Relations Commission is unable to investigate or adjudicate claims, not that the judiciary is immune from suit under the law.

Justices Christine Donohue and Kevin Dougherty both pushed back against Deratzian's argument, saying the judiciary already has a "robust" process for dealing with these claims. Donohue further said the construct Deratzian was suggesting was "nonsensical" because people bringing discrimination and wrongful termination claims are entitled to have their cases heard by juries.

Deratzian, however, said there was no guarantee to a remedy under the current process, and no redress if a president judge refuses to consider a claimant's case. Further, he contended, the lack of remedy for court employees under these claims conflicted with the constitutional protections against discrimination.

Attorney Robert Krandel of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts' arguments jibed with Donohue and Dougherty's assertions that current procedures already provide for adequate remedies and avenues for judicial review.

Justice David Wecht, however, questioned whether it mattered that the state's policy does not outline that the claimant is entitled to money damages or attorney fees.

Krandel said he did not think it did since the rules do not specifically bar those remedies.

"If the court feels it needs to do anything … all it needs to do is highlight this policy," Krandel said.