Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINIATION

PENNSYLAVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: PROBABLE CAUSE TO CREDIT LAW CENTER CLIENT’S ALLEGATIONS OF GENDER AND RACE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

Law Center client Romani Abney was vindicated on October 7, 2008 when the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) issued a finding of probable cause to credit her allegations that the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act when it failed to promote her to a position for which she was qualified and eventually constructively discharged her due to her race and gender. The PHRC also found probable cause to credit the allegations of Ms. Abney, an African American woman, that she was subjected to incidents of harassment forcing her to work in a hostile environment. These allegations amount to a violation of Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 955.

In the facts described by the PHRC, Ms. Abney worked for PHA for two years as a graduate architect during which time she received exemplary evaluations and the support of her field supervisor. In 1999,Ms. Abney applied for a promotion to Project Engineer but the position was given to a Caucasian male coworker; Ms. Abney was informed that she did not possess the required experience. To strengthen her candidacy, Ms. Abney enrolled in a program to receive a B.A. in Architecture, while continuing to work in the same position at PHA. She also enrolled in several continuing education training programs. In January 2003, once she had gained the requisite experience, Ms. Abney reapplied and was rejected for the position of project engineer in January 2003. She applied and was rejected again in October 2003 and October 2004.

According PHRC’s finding of probable cause, PHA hired five project engineers during the years that Ms. Abney was applying for the position. Four of them were men; the sole female who was promoted to the position received it only after Ms. Abney had filed a complaint against PHA. In addition, PHRC noted that PHA had previously hired project engineers who did not posses either the degree or the on the job experience which PHA was requiring of Ms. Abney.

According to the PHRC’s findings, after Ms. Abney filed complaints against PHA, her supervisor began harassing her and creating a hostile work environment. Ms. Abney notified PHA of the harassment in November 2004 and again in January 2005. Ms. Abney’s situation became so unbearable that her doctor required her to take a work-related stress leave in January 2005 and suggested that she leave the job due to health concerns in May 2005. The mounting tension between Ms. Abney and her supervisor led to her constructive discharge on May 27th, 2005.
PHRC Finding of Probable Cause

LAW CENTER JOINS FORCES WITH OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS TO PROTECT ABILITY TO COMBAT EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION WITH CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

On October 31, 2007 an Amicus Brief was submitted to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by the Law Center and three other organizations - The Impact Fund, The National Employment Lawyers Association, and The Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law - charged, among other things, with protecting the civil rights of all people, and dedicated to representing employee clients and advocating for workplace fairness. As more fully described in the brief itself, Amici are interested in the case (GUTIERREZ, et al, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON) because their clients' (or their members' clients') ability to enforce their civil rights may be significantly affected by this matter. Believing that the opinion of the district court, if permitted to stand, could have significant adverse consequences for their ability to present classwide challenges to unlawful discriminatory employment practices in violation of federal and state civil rights statutes, the organizations have submitted the brief which attempts to summarize the vast body of social scientific, statutory, and judicial authority supporting such classwide challenges as necessary and appropriate to combat unlawful discrimination.
Read the brief here

History of the Employment Discrimination Project

Ending employment discrimination, based on race, gender or disability, has been an important element of the Law Center's work since it was created out of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Training lawyers to make Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 work effectively was one of the first projects of the Law Center. Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cited the pro bono training program established by the Law Center as exemplary and particularly effective.

Discrimination deprives the victim of significant monetary rights which in turn are the source of independence, self-esteem and security. Gains from employment provide sustenance for the individual and for family life. In this society, discrimination undermines the center of economic well-being.

Consequently, the Law Center undertook to attack the denial of jobs in important economic sectors of Philadelphia life.

A series of cases were brought focusing on the steel industry. The Law Center tried the class action against the U.S. Steel Company for discrimination in promotion to apprentice jobs and to first level management in Dickerson v. U.S. Steel. After trial and judgment for the plaintiffs, the case was settled for .8 million in damages and attorney fees. Richard Z. Freemann, Jr. led the team at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll that tried the claim for discrimination in initial hires, in a case called Green v. U.S. Steel. The verdict in that case was for .5 million. William H. Ewing led a team at Epstein Connolly in a case against Lukens Steel, Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in an award of damages of .3 million.

Several individual cases on behalf of steel workers set important precedents, including Worthy v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Another series of cases targeted employment in the Philadelphia Police Department. The Law Center intervened on behalf of the Guardian Civic League in Commonwealth v. O'Neill, a case concerned with the hiring of African-Americans as police officers. In particular, the suit challenged the use of a rank order written exam for selecting officers. Eventually, settlement of that suit resulted in extending the class so that all qualified applicants were hired.

Subsequently, a new test was challenged in Freeman v. City of Philadelphia, and resulted in a decree requiring the hiring of African-Americans at the same percentage level as they were of all African-American test takers. The decree, challenged by the Federation of Police, was upheld on appeal. As a result of the litigation, African Americans increased from 12 percent to 35 percent of the police force.

In an individual action, Brace v. Philadelphia , Frank Finch of the Law Center represented Penelope Brace in an effort to open the police department to women police officers. Previously, they had been limited to juvenile aids. This matter consolidated with a later filed Justice Department case, resulted in women now being 25 percent of the force.

While at the Law Center, Luis Diaz brought Alvarez v. City of Philadelphia, on behalf of Hispanics excluded from the police force and the Law Center continued to provide assistance in litigating the case when he continued with the matter at the Latino Project.

Other suits in the public sector included a major class action against SEPTA for its discriminatory discharge practices. The four-week jury trial found no class-wide discrimination, despite evidence showing a discharge rate three times as great for minorities as for whites. The jury did find discrimination against three of the individual plaintiffs.

Two class-wide actions on behalf of persons who have 20/20 vision with glasses or contact lenses but were denied hiring as Philadelphia police officers and as Philadelphia firefighters were successfully settled. Class members ultimately were hired as police officers and firefighters. A subsequent suit against the state police was ultimately dismissed as the U.S. Supreme Court reinterpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Finally, the Law Center and the Justice Department teamed up in Lanning v. SEPTA to challenge SEPTA's discriminatory practice of using a running test to exclude women as transit police. As a result of the test, SEPTA nearly totally excluded women as transit police. The test SEPTA used was more restrictive than that used by any other municipal or transit police force in the country, as well as the U.S. Army, FBI and DEA. The first time the case went to the Court of Appeals the Court remanded it to the District Court after ruling that a test could be used only if it tested what actually is needed to do a particular job. The District Court again found the test valid, although the test used average ability as a measure to pass various tests and not minimum ability. On the second appeal, the Bush Justice Department withdrew. One of the judges on the panel died after hearing the Law Center's oral argument but before the opinion was written. The Court ultimately upheld use of the test.