applying “the analytical model developed by the United States Supreme Court for Title VII cases in [McDonnell Douglas]” with approval “for employment discrimination cases under the Human Relations Act”
How later courts described this case
- applying “the analytical model developed by the United States Supreme Court for Title VII cases in [McDonnell Douglas]” with approval “for employment discrimination cases under the Human Relations Act”
- discussing shifting burdens of proof under the PHRA for discrimination claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice, dissenting.
As noted by Mr. Justice Larsen in his dissenting opinion, the issue in this appeal was one of credibility. There is no dispute as to the law applicable in this matter. The credibility of witnesses was assessed by the Human Relations Commission and their findings supported the award. The Commonwealth Court affirmed and I find no legitimate basis for this Court to disturb that order.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.