Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Zamantakis

387 A.2d 70, 478 Pa. 454, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 652

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 8, 1978
• Docket: 33
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

LARSEN, Justice.

The sole question to be determined is whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission has the authority to award damages for mental anguish and humiliation which may arise as a result of unlawful discrimination. We answer in the negative.

The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows: On February 15, 1972,. George and Bessie Zamantakis placed an advertisement in a local newspaper offering to rent a four room apartment. Sylvester and Willis Thornton responded to the advertisement on that same day and were not permitted to rent the apartment. On February 16, 1972, the Thorntons, who are black, filed a complaint with the Commission charging that the Zamantakises, who are white, had refused to rent them the apartment because of the Thorn-tons’ race. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,¹ the Commission found that the Zamantakises had denied the Thorntons the apartment because of their race, and on November 27, 1972, ordered, among other things, the Zamantakises to pay each Thornton $250.00 within 30 days in order to compensate them for mental anguish and humiliation.² An appeal from this order was taken to Commonwealth Court, which in an opinion written by the late and Honorable Harry A. Kramer and filed on August 14, 1973, held that the Commission had no authority to award damages for mental anguish and humiliation.³ A petition for allowance of appeal to this Court was then filed by the Commission. We granted that allowance on October 18, 1973.

The Commission asserts that its authority to award damages for mental anguish and humiliation is conferred by Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. We disagree. The pertinent part of Section 9 is as follows:

“If, upon all the evidence at the hearing, the Commission shall find that a respondent has engaged in or is engaging in any unlawful discriminatory practice as defined in this act, the Commission shall state its findings of fact, and shall issue and cause to be served on such respondent an order requiring such respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful discriminatory practice and to take such affirmative action including but not limited to hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of employes, with or without back pay, admission or restoration to membership in any respondent labor organization, or selling or leasing specified commercial housing upon such equal terms and conditions and with such equal facilities, services and privileges or lending money, whether or not secured by mortgage or otherwise for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of commercial housing, upon such equal terms and conditions to any person discriminated against or all persons as, in the judgment of the Commission, will effectuate the purposes of this act, and including a requirement for report of the manner of compliance.” (Emphasis added).

We have held that the Legislature has given the Commission broad discretionary power to effectuate the policies of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Association, 453 Pa. 124, 306 A.2d 881 (1973). However, the Commission, like all administrative agencies, can only exercise those powers which have been conferred upon it by the Legislature. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corporation, Zinc Smelting Division, 476 Pa. 302, 382 A.2d 731 (1978).

We quote with approval and adopt the language used by the Commonwealth Court in this case.⁴

“As we view our role in this case, on this issue, we must determine whether our Legislature intended our Commission to award compensatory damages for ‘humiliation and mental anguish’. We first note that in the Pennsylvania statute, there is no specific legislative language authorizing the Commission to award such damages. Next, we note that the statutorily provided proceeding is directed to be expeditious and informal, as are most administrative procedures. There are none of the formal trappings, evidentiary protections,⁵ and strict procedures of a court of law. In addition, the members of the Commission necessarily need not be trained or learned in the law. As so often happens in an administrative proceeding, the Commission and its employes are the investigators, the prosecutors, the judges and jury. On balance, this results in an unduly heavy force on the side of the proponents of damages. Traditionally, damages, in this Commonwealth, have been a matter for courts of law, under an adversary system of justice and therefore unless the Legislature clearly authorizes the Commission to award damages, we cannot extend to it such authority by judicial fiat, nor can we broaden the scope of the Commission’s authority into a full scale lawsuit. See 43 P.S. § 960.”

The Commission concurrently argues that the Legislature must have meant for the Commission to have the power to assess damages for humiliation and mental anguish because the Commission, when the provisions of the Human Relations Act are invoked, is the exclusive vehicle for cor-reefing discrimination.⁶ This argument fails; exclusiveness and unlimited power are not wed together. If one were to adopt this argument, the Commission could fine and imprison persons for discrimination.⁷. Of course, no such power emanates out of the Act. Sixteen months after Commonwealth Court’s decision in this case, the Legislature amended the Human Relations Act.⁸ This amendment eliminated the Commission as the exclusive remedy for discrimination when the provisions of the Human Relations Act are invoked, and provided, under certain conditions, access to the Court of Common Pleas. The amendment gave to the courts authority to order, in addition to the same “affirmative action” as the Commission, “any other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate”. “Legal or equitable relief” includes damages for humiliation and mental anguish. We must presume that the Legislature was aware of Commonwealth Court’s decision in this case, yet the Legislature still chose not to give the Commission the power to award these types of damages, but instead chose to have the Common Pleas Court award these damages.

A majority of our sister states have found that absent express legislative authority, a civil rights agency cannot award damages in the nature of those sought in this case.⁹

The order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

MANDERINO, J., filed a Concurring Opinion. O’BRIEN and POMEROY, JJ., concurred in the result. ROBERTS, J., filed a Dissenting Opinion in which NIX, J., joined.

1 . Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, § I, as amended, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.

2 . The Commission also ordered the Zamantakises to cease and desist from any further unlawful discrimination, to rent to the Thorntons the next available four room apartment and to post- fair housing. notices in their apartment buildings.

3 . Zamantakis v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 10 Pa. Cmwlth. 107, 308 A.2d 612 (1973).

4 . Zamantakis v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, supra, at 308 A.2d 616.

5 . (Our footnote) Section 9 also provides that “[t]he Commission shall not he bound by the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity”.

6 . When the provisions of the Act are not invoked, an aggrieved party may seek redress in the courts. Daly v. School District of Darby Township, 434 Pa. 286, 252 A.2d 638 (1969).

7 . The Human Relations Commission is not without powers to obtain compliance with its orders. The Human Relations Act provides that wilful violation of an order of the Commission is a misdemeanor. 43 P.S. § 961.

8 . Section 12(c) was added to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act by the Act of December 19, 1974, P.L. 966, No. 318, § 6.

9 . No damages permitted: Ohio — Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Lysyj, 38 Ohio St.2d 217, 313 N.E.2d 3 (1974); Maryland — Gutwein v. Easton Publishing Company, 272 Md. 563, 325 A.2d 740 (1974); Wisconsin — Murphy v. Industrial Commission, 37 Wis.2d 704, 155 N.W.2d 545, 157 N.W.2d 568 (1968); Iowa — Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart, 191 N.W.2d 758 (1971); District of Columbia — Mendota Apts. v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights, D.C. App., 315 A.2d 832 (1974).

Damages permitted: West Virginia — West Virginia Human Rights Commission v. Pauley, W.Va., 212 S.E.2d 77 (1975); Illinois — A. P. Green Services Division of Bigelow-Liptak Corporation v. State of Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, 19 Ill.App.3d 875, 312 N.E.2d 314 (974); Oregon — Williams v. Joyce, 4 Or.App. 482, 479 P.2d 513 (1970); New Jersey — Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 253 A.2d 793 (1969) and Zahorian v. Russell Fitt Real Estate Agency, 62 N.J. 399, 301 A.2d 754 (1973).