# Pittsburgh Press Employment Advertising Discrimination Appeal

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 27, 1972 · 4 Pa. Commw. 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6360862

## Case

- **Full name:** Pittsburgh Press Employment Advertising Discrimination Appeal
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 27, 1972
- **Citations:** 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
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mencer
- **Judges:** Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Manderino, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6360862

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6360862. Public record. Not legal advice.