stating AIDS a disability or handicap under PHRA
How later courts described this case
- stating AIDS a disability or handicap under PHRA
- failure to pursue administrative remedy for alleged discriminatory termination cognizable under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act foreclosed the employee from pursuing judicial recourse
- Ca vanaugh, J., concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
POPOVICH, Judge:
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing appellant’s complaint. J.J.E., appellant, filed a complaint alleging tortious discrimination against his employer, Doe & Roe, owners of a restaurant, for wrongful termination of employment. Appellant contends he was discharged from his job for being homosexual and contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, i.e., AIDS. Appellant claims this is against public policy.
The recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 370 Pa.Super. 497 , 536 A.2d 1375 (1988), allocatur granted, 518 Pa. 647 , 544 A.2d 959 (1988), rev’d in part, 522 Pa. 86 , 559 A.2d 917 (1989), is on point. The Court stated that the intended forum for addressing grievances of this sort is the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. There was no intent to give broad, unrestricted access to civil actions, outside the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging discriminatory termination of at-will employment. Appellant’s failure to exercise the proper method for addressing his grievances forecloses him from pursuing judicial recourse.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
CAVANAUGH, J., files a concurring statement.