Opinion

Pittsburgh Press Employment Advertising Discrimination Appeal

  • 4 Pa. Commw. 448
  • 287 A.2d 161
  • 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7732
  • 4 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 325
  • 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 568
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 27, 1972
Status
Published
Author
Mencer
On the bench
Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Manderino, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
Cited by
33 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Mencer:

I respectfully dissent. The complaint in this case alleged a violation by The Pittsburgh Press Company (appellant) of Section 8(j) of the City of Pittsburgh’s Human Relations Ordinance. Section 8(j) makes it an unlawful employment practice “to aid, incite, compel, coerce or participate in the doing of any act declared to be an unlawful employment practice or to obstruct or prevent any person from enforcing or complying with the provisions of this ordinance, or any rule, regulation or order of the Commission, or to attempt directly or indirectly to commit any act declared by this ordinance to be an unlawful employment practice.”

*477 Tbe complaint does not allege any violation by anyone else. It is simply impossible for the appellant to be guilty of aiding another in the violation of the ordinance when no violation is even alleged and in fact no attempt was made to prove such a violation. It is fundamental that one cannot aid that which did not occur.

I must conclude that due process clearly requires that, without alleging or proving a violation of the ordinance by an employer who was aided by appellant, the complaint is invalid on its face and should be dismissed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.