'Do Court Employees Stand Alone' Without Civil Rights Protections, Lawyer Asks Pa. Justices
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.
November 21, 2019 at 06:00 PM
4 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250