Return to flip book view
• Governor Tom Corbett • Chairman Gerry Robinson • Executive Director JoAnn Edwards • deprives large segments of the population of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of livingdiscriminationnecessitates resort to public reliefUNDERMINES THE FOUNDATIONS OF A FREE DEMOCRATIC STATE– PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACTDENIAL OF RIGHTS & PRIVILEGESintensies group conictsdenial of equal opportunitythreatening peace, health, safety and general welfare 2011-2012 Annual Report
2In 1955, Pennsylvania was years ahead of the nation when our governor and legislature outlawed discrimination, creating the PA Human Relations Commission to enforce nondiscrimination law and promote equal opportunity. Among our state and federal peers, PHRC continues to be a leader and a model for civil rights enforcement.The 1955 prohibition of discrimnation in employment and housing based on race, religion, national origin, ancestry and age was later expanded to include public accommodations and education. Then in the 1960s and 1970s, amendments granted rights to women and people with disabilities. But enforcing laws and establishing sound public policy has not completely reversed a climate that was oppressive for women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities and people with disabilities. PHRC still has work to do.Census and workforce statistics show Pennsylvania now has more minorities, more workers who are over 40, more women in a broader array of workplaces, and more minority and female business owners. But despite decades of progress, illegal discrimination still acts as a barrier to equal opportunity. Women still make 77 cents for every dollar their male peers make. Racial, ethnic and religious minorities are still mistrusted and misunderstood based on prejudiced assumptions. People over 40 and people with disabilities are denied jobs, benets and higher salaries because of stereotypical notions of their abilities. With change comes discrimination, as new groups are perceived as threatening jobs or established power. There’s no denying that we have changed. It shows not just in census gures, but in the complaints we are investigating. Retaliation complaints have increased consistently nationwide, and Pennsylvania is no exception. Disability, sex and age complaints now make up a larger portion of our caseload than cases based on race, ancestry and national origin.Technology, budgetary and human resources have also changed tremendously.And we are changing with them. As a result of innovations implemented over scal year 11-12, we had reduced an inherited $1.5 million dollar decit by over 60 percent. Working in close partnership with the Oce of Administration to meet our HR, IT and nancial ocer needs, we have since eliminated the decit altogether. But we are still strained by leases and sharp increases in pension and other personnel costs. We still have work to do.We are changing how we process and investigate complaints to become more ecient and get quicker relief Leading the Way in a new Era:Introduction from PHRC’s Chairman & Executive DirectorGerald S. RobinsonChairmanJoAnn L. EdwardsExecutive Director
3both to victims and to the unjustly accused. For too long, we have delayed justice with unnecessary bureaucracy, and by clinging to dated methods and technologies. We have been able to increase our eciency while maintaining the legal integrity of our process and protecting the rights of both parties. This eort resulted in revenue of $78,000 for employment discrimination cases closed during the 2011-12 federal scal year, and allowed us to increase our federal contract, resulting in an additional $81,000 reimbursement from the EEOC. We are also changing by taking a more proactive approach to education and outreach.Equal opportunity has been the rule of law in Pennsylvania for nearly six decades. But the damage done by 200 years of slavery, and 100 more years of Jim Crow laws cannot be easily or quickly repaired. Discrimination still blocks opportunities in our schools. This has costly, long-lasting and damaging ripple-eects throughout our communities.We see what we’re calling a “Cycle of Defeat,” with persistent inequities leading to low minority achievement and high drop-out rates, which in turn lead to unemployment, poverty, crime and incarceration. The vicious cycle that starts with denied opportunities for minority children and educators continues with high social costs, is repeated in the next generation, and ultimately contibutes to our state’s unsustainabile spending of $1.86 billion on corrections and billions in public safety and welfare benets. “…not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.” – President John F. Kennedy, 1963Contents:Introduction pages 2-3Commissioners pages 4-5Investigation & Enforcement pages 6-7Settlement Highlights pages 7-8Final Orders pages 8-9Case-Management Initiative page 10Educational Outreach pages11-14Case Statistics pages 15-18We believe we can help break this cycle.The commission has the legal authority to address inequities, and we have partners with resources and proven strategies to correct them. Through partnerships with public and private agencies, we can provide resources to Pennsylvania school districts struggling with inequities and low minority achievement. These solutions are primarily free to the districts, and will not burden cash-strapped schools with unfunded mandates.We know these are complex problems, with no easy solutions. But we have seen schools where the solutions we recommend are working. We can’t aord not to try. We will be cementing details of this Education Equity Initiative in the coming year, as well as formulating a strategic plan to continue to serve Pennsylvanians and protect their rights in years to come. Thank you for your partnership and support. Together we can continue to improve the climate for equal opportunity in Pennsylvania’s businesses, schools and communities.
4CommissionersGerald S. Robinson, ChairmanDr. Raquel O. Yiengst, VicechairDr. Daniel D. Yun, SecretaryRev. James Garmon, Asst. Sec’yIsmael Arcelay (through Dec. 2012)M. Joel BolsteinHon. Terence Farrell (conrmed Jan. 2012)Stephen A. Glassman (through March 2012)Pamela L. McGaha (conrmed March 2012)J. Whyatt MondesireS. Kweilin NassarSylvia A. Waters Daniel L. Woodall (through Jan. 2012)Seated, l. to r.: Assistant Secretary Rev. Dr. James Earl Garmon, Sr., Vicechairperson Dr. Raquel O. Yiengst, Chairman Gerald S. Robinson. Standing: J. Whyatt Mondesire, Daniel Woodall, Sylvia A. Waters, Ismael Arcelay, S. Kweilin Nassar. Not pictured: M. Joel Bolstein, Pamela L. McGaha, Hon. Terence Farrell, Stephen A. Glassman, Secretary Dr. Daniel D. Yun, Commissioners: Decision-Makers &Equal Opportunity AmbassadorsPHRC Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and conrmed by the Senate to represent the interests of all Pennsylvanians in preventing and ending discrimination. There are 11 positions, and commissioners serve ve-year terms.Commissioners represent Southeastern PA, the Pittsburgh area, the Lehigh Valley and Central Pennsylvania. They are racially and ethnically diverse and represent different religions and political viewpoints. They come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds, including education, journalism, medicine, law, public administration, religious ministry and the military.They meet monthly, entering spirited debates, giving voice to minority and majority interests in adjudicating cases, considering potential discriminatory effects of proposed legislation and other matters related to the law. Between meetings, they work to promote equal opportunity throughout the state. They also guide the work of commission staff, setting policy and making personnel, budgetary and operational decisions. Commissioners work closely with public and private organizations representing numerous ethnic, racial, gender, age-based, family, disability and religious advocacy organizations representing groups protected under Pennsylvania law, as well as with other civil rights law enforcement organizations on the state and federal level.
5The Honorable Terence Farrell, of West Chester, joined the commission in January of 2012. As chairman of Chester County Board of Commissioners, he brings a wealth of experience in public eciency and account-ability to PHRC. At the center of Farrell’s award-winning leadership is the philosophy that government must meet scal challenges imposed by federal and state budget reductions, while still providing the quality of services citizens have come to expect, and we must do so in an accountable, responsible manner. Bethlehem-based management consultant Pamela L. McGaha joined the commission in March 2012. A former Fulbright Scholar, military veteran, and Lt. Colonel in the PA Army National Guard, she brings a wealth of strategic planning experience to the commis-sion. She is currently guiding the establish-ment of a ve-year strategic plan to meet the civil rights needs of Pennsylvanians in an environment of changing demographics, and reduced funding and stang.New Commissioners in 2012 Bring New Energy, Expertise & Enthusiasm for PHRC’s Mission
6In 2011-12, PHRC launched 3,988 investigations of complaints of illegal discrimination. This was a 25 percent increase over 3,190 complaints docketed in 2010-11, and followed two consecutive years of nearly 20 percent decreases. Total complaints included: • 3,414 of employment discrimination, • 285 housing discrimination, • 207 public accommodations* discrimination,• 83 education* discrimination, and• 4 commercial property discrimination. *Education complaints allege violations of the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act, which prohibits discrimination in higher education and secondary and postsecondary vocational and technical education. Other complaints of discrimination against students in educational institutions fall under the public accommodations provisions of the PA Human Relations Act.Employment complaints, which consistently make up approximately 85 percent of PHRC investigations, included 4,478 allegations of separate discriminatory acts. (A complaint may allege more than one act of harm.) These included discharge, refusal to hire, harassment, discriminatory discipline, unequal pay or benets, etc.Cases Pending beginning of year: 4,651Cases Pending at year end: 3,8873,659 under investigation217 in conciliation11 on the Public Hearing docketAverage age of pending cases: 473 daysTotal Cases Closed: 3,537EEOC Cases*: 2,828HUD Cases*: 210Settled after Probable Cause nding: 64Settled before nding: 1,050Closed after No Probable Cause nding: 1,927Closed for administrative reasons (withdrawn, led in court, etc.): 49650 percent of cases were closed within a year, of those, 20 percent were closed in within six months and 12 percent within three months.Despite a 25 percent increase in docketed cases and the loss of 16 staff members over the year, streamlining and re-engineering our case management processes (See page 10.) enabled us to close substantially greater numbers of cases overall, and gain an additional $81,000 in revenue for employment discrimination cases dually led with EEOC. We achieved a 15.25 percent increase in the number of cases dually led with HUD that were closed within 100 days, far exceeding our goal of a three percent increase. Settlement total: $9,926,817 (Does not include many cases settled privately between the parties.)Probable Cause Findings — 54: • Employment 36• Housing 13• Public Accommodations 3• Commercial Property 2 *EEOC cases are investigated by PHRC on behalf of both PHRC and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. HUD cases are investigated by PHRC on behalf of both PHRC and the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. PHRC receives federal funding for these cases.Investigation & Enforcement Summary3,414, 86%285, 7%207, 5%83, 2%4, 0%Employment Housing PublicAccommodations Education CommercialProperty Discrimination Complaints Docketed in 2011-2012
70100200300400500600700800900Race/Color 20.6%Retaliation 19.8%Disability-Related 18.6%Sex 16.9%Age 13.7%National Origin 3.1% Religion 2.8%Ancestry 2.8%Multiple Class 1.4%Basis of ComplaintsThe bar graph above illustrates the basis of complaints PHRC received, and the percentage of the total represented by each. Since an individual may allege discrimination based on more than one factor (age, sex, race, etc.), complaints may be counted more than once. An example of Multiple Class allegations would be when a black woman is treated less favorably than black men or white women (i.e. race pllus sex, but neither factor alone.) A more specic breakdown within each protected class basis is available in the statistical supplement on pages 14-17.Settlement Highlights: Relief to Discrimination Victims2 education discrimination cases, both involving harassment, settled for a combined $27,500. 125 employment discrimination cases settled for $10,000 or more: The largest overall settlement — $1,442,000 — involved sexual harassment charges by a woman.29 sex discrimination settlements:8 other sexual harassment complaints, all led by women, 2nd highest — $260,000. 7 involved male complainants, highest amount — $100,228. 2 pregnancy discrimination PHRC settlements are legally binding and generally include a condentiality term, so in most instances they are not publicized. Settlements in 2011-2012, whether cash payments or other awards with monetary value, totaled almost $10 million. These payments directly beneted over 19,000 Pennsylvanians. Thousands more beneted from improved workplace policies, better access to public places and the elimination of illegal practices. Below are cases involving settlements over $10,000.settlements, the highest — $37,500. 9 were women who were red, terminated from contracts, denied promotion or demoted. Highest amount — $100,228.1 settlement with a woman alleging refusal to hire — $20,000. 23 race discrimination settlements; most with African-American or black complainants. Highest settlement — $46,000. 20 disability discrimination settlements: Highest amount — $46,005. 14 age discrimination settlements:Highest amount — $54,184. 29 retaliation settlements:Highest amount — $80,000. 2 settlements based on ancestry or national origin, one with a Hispanic man — $15,000, and one with a Vietnamese man — $26,000. 8 religious discrimination settlements: Highest amount — $118,000.
8PA's Fair Employment Case Settlement Rate Far Exceeds the U.S. Average0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%2009-10 2010-11 2011-12Fiscal YearCase Settlement RatePennsylvaniaU.S. Average*EEOC*U.S. average is based on settlement rates of other state fair employment practice agencies.Settlement Highlights: Relief to Discrimination Victims (cont.)PHRC Final Orders: Relief to Discrimination VictimsPHRC’s settlement rate for employment complaints, which make up the large majority of investigations, was 31 percent for 2011-12. The rate far exceeds the U.S. average for Fair Employment Practice Agencies (state and regional agencies that enforce employment discrimination laws) and is more than twice that of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2011-12, PHRC held ve public hearings. Nine additional hearings were scheduled, but the cases settled before a hearing was held. The commission issued 11 nal orders after public hearings, rendering decisions on cases heard primarily during the prior scal year. 2011-12 Final Order Summaries:July 26 – PHRC ordered a Berks County man to pay $13,875 for illegally harassing a neighbor based on her race and disability. The man, who failed to answer the complaint, was ordered to cease discriminating against his neighbor and to pay her $10,000 for humiliation and suffering, $2,875 for the costs of modications to her property, and $1,000 in civil penalties to the commonwealth.July 25 – PHRC ordered a Delaware County property management company and its owner to pay $13,300 for illegally retaliating against a tenant for ling a sexual harassment suit against another company he owned.The company terminated the woman’s lease of 11 years shortly after she settled a federal sexual harassment suit against her employer.The company and owner were ordered to cease retaliating, and pay $10,648 plus interest to the complainant for expenses related to her forced relocation.Aug. 22 – PHRC dismissed a disability discrimination complaint led by a Delaware County resident against his former employer, Haverford Township. The commission found that he had not produced sufcient evidence to support his claims.Sept. 27 – PHRC ordered a Berks County poultry processor to pay $6,900 for illegally discriminating against a Reading man based on his Guatemalan national origin.The company failed to answer the complaint, and the commission held them liable for illegal discrimination and ordered them to cease discriminating against employees based on national origin, to respond to future charges and to pay $6,900 in back pay, plus interest.Sept. 27 – PHRC ordered a Cambria County landscaping company to pay more than $21,000 for illegal racial discrimination and retaliation against a Johnstown-based former employee. The man, who is African-American, alleged that the company reduced his hours and benets, then terminated his employment because of his race and because he had opposed illegal discrimination. The company failed to answer the complaint, and the commission held
9them liable and ordered them to cease illegally discriminating based on race, and to respond to future charges. They were also ordered to pay the former employee $452 to reimburse expenses, and $18,407 in back pay, plus interest. Oct. 24 – PHRC ordered a Montgomery County lender to pay $668,951 to seven borrowers for damages, humiliation and suffering due to illegal predatory lending, plus $10,000 in civil penalties to the commonwealth. The complainant, of New Castle, Del., led a complaint with the commission on behalf of himself and six others who received commercial loans from the company. The complaint alleged illegal racial and national origin-based discrimination in the terms and conditions of loans for commercial property. The victims were African-American and Hispanic and all of the businesses were in predominantly minority Philadelphia neighborhoods.The company made loans without running credit checks or reviewing nancial histories to assess ability to repay loans. Loans included interest rates as high as 35 percent; high fees and penalties; frequent “ipping,” or resets; and were structured to create borrower corporations controlled by the lender. The company was also ordered to cease discriminating based on race and national origin, provide non-discrimination training for its employees and report bi-annual mortgage data to the commission for three years. Nov. 2 – PHRC dismissed an age discrimination complaint led by a Mercersburg, Franklin County retiree, against his former employer, Pennsylvania State Police. The commission did not nd sufcient evidence to support the claim.Nov. 29 – PHRC ordered a Bucks County steel fabricator to pay more than $122,989 to a Pineville, N.C. man for illegally discriminating against him based on his Mexican ancestry. The former employee alleged that the company had harassed him based on his ancestry, and created working conditions that forced him to quit his job. Among the allegations, the man, who is a U.S. citizen, claimed the owner threatened to turn him in as an illegal alien. The company failed to respond to the complaint or attend a public hearing to determine damages. The commission held the company liable for illegal discrimination. The commission also ordered them to cease illegally discriminating against employees based on their ancestry, to pay the former employee $55,286 in back pay, plus interest, until payment is made; $1,256 for expenses; and one year of wages he would have otherwise earned, of $62,400. Jan. 24 – PHRC ordered a Harrisburg construction company to pay a Perry County former employee more than $33,710 in lost wages, interest and expenses due to disability discrimination. The man alleged that the company red him from his job as a carpenter because of his disability, despite his demonstrated ability to perform his job duties. The commission also ordered the company to reimburse the commission $2,400 for expert medical testimony provided during the public hearing.March 27 – ordered the Philadelphia Prison System to pay a former employee $31,256 in back pay, plus interest, for discriminating against her based on her sex. The woman alleged that she was denied a promotion based on her sex and race. A second woman led a similar complaint around the same time. Investigations found probable cause to support both women’s claims. The city agreed to have both complaints considered in one public hearing.The commission’s order dismissed one complaint and held the prison system liable for sex discrimination, but not race discrimination in the second complaint.The commission ordered the prison system to cease discriminating against employees based on sex and to provide non-discrimination training for its staff. June 26 – PHRC ordered a Berks County child welfare agency to pay an African-American former employee over $40,000 in back pay, plus interest, for race-based discrimination.In July 2007, the commission awarded back pay to the complainant and ordered the agency to cease race discrimination and undergo training to prevent future discrimination. The agency appealed, and in May 2009, Commonwealth Court vacated the order, remanding the case for a new hearing because commissioners who heard the case were not on the commission when the order was issued.On Oct. 26, 2010, the commission again ordered the agency to cease discrimination based on race and undergo training, but did not award back pay. The complainant appealed, and Commonwealth Court afrmed the commission’s discrimination nding, but ordered an additional hearing to consider a back-pay award. The commission awarded $28,416 for back pay, plus six percent interest annually until payment is made.“Work is about ability, not disability. Basing a decision to re someone on his dis-ability is discrimination, and it is illegal in Pennsylvania.” – JoAnn L. Edwards
10Integrity > Eciency > Equity: Case Management Re-ImaginedCase-Management Improvement InitiativeIn the fall of 2011, PHRC began to re-evaluate and completely revise case-processing procedures, with three overall goals:1) To speed investigative ndings to complainants and respondents, without compromising investigative quality or the legal rights of either party;2) to make caseloads more manageable; and3) to improve our standing with our funding sources and public perception of our agency.Newly-hired Special Assistant to the Executive Director Tammy McElfresh has spearheaded the initiative, in conjunction with staff experts from each PHRC regional ofce, commissioners, union representatives, consultants from the Ofce of Administration and assistance from the Delta Group, a management-consulting rm which studied and recommended improvements to PHRC processes in the late 1990s. PHRC Director of Compliance James Kayer, who was promoted to his position late in the scal year, led a Pilot Team of intake staff, investigators and attorneys throughout the rst six months of the initiative. With input from the much broader group of staff and consultants, the Pilot Team designed and implemented processes to meet overall project goals and more specic goals of 1) determining measurable, consistent standards for all case-processing; and 2) processing and closing new cases within a year and cases older than one year within 60-90 days.This team-based approach to case-processing — which includes attorney involvement from the outset, a new case-analysis format and a focused process for approaching problematic, older cases — has been the hallmark of the initiative. The initiative passed its six-month mark at the end of the scal year, yielding dramatic increases in productivity for Pilot Team members. In the rst and second quarters of 2012, team members saw average productivity increases of 62 and 67 percent, respectively, over the rst two quarters of the previous year. At the end of the rst six months, the Pilot Team and initiative leaders put forth a list of recommendations to improve investigative quality and efciency, customer service, and outreach. The initiative was also a key factor in increasing the number of cases contracted to PHRC by the EEOC, in turn increasing funding for the year by $81,000.The initiative will be advanced in 2012-13 by the hiring of permanent regional directors to replace three long-time administrators who retired over the past two scal years, and by the recruitment of new agency attorneys and other key positions.We expect to see continued successes as 2012-13 progresses and Pilot Teams in our Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ofces institute new phases of process-improvement.“I truly believe in our mission,” says Jinada Rochelle, Harrisburg’s Pilot Team leader. “As an investigator, you make a difference every single day. Taking this new approach to our investigative process reminds me constantly of the difference we make in people’s lives.”
11Proactive Outreach: Promoting Equal Opportunity“Denying someone op-portunities simply be-cause they are dierent from us diminishes us all, and makes us less than we are capable of being.”— JoAnn L. EdwardsIn January of 2012, PHRC nalized a settlement with the Reading School District, cementing a ve-year action plan to address problems blocking district students’ achievement and fair access to education. The settlement is a binding agreement addressing commission ndings after a public hearing convened in September 2010 and February 2011. Settlement terms were based on proven methods to address identied issues inhibiting student achievement in a district comprised of 76 percent Latino or Hispanic students and 11 percent African-American and other minority ethnic and racial groups. The terms include measures to address equal educational opportunity, equal employment opportunity, and school safety.The Reading settlement, and previous work with the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia School Districts, became the basis of an Education Equity Initiative, building a coalition to proactively address these issues in schools by supplying specialized training and other resources to districts facing equity issues. The initiative, which began in the summer of 2012, is building a coalition of partner organizations to provide participating districts with services such as training, research, in most instances free of charge. Services are delivered by PHRC and partners such as the Mid-Atlantic Equity Center The Education Law Center and numerous other public and private organizations, many of which have been long-standing partners with PHRC. The initiative is an effort to formalize these partnerships, broaden the existing coalition, identify schools most in need of services and work together proactively to address equal opportunity roadblocks in PA schools.By proactively addressing these issues, rather than resorting to litigation, we hope to help diminish the ever-increasing costs of low educational achievement, high dropout rates, unemployment, crime and incarceration.Vicechairperson Dr. Raquel Yiengst, who has worked tirelessly for decades to increase educational equity in Reading and around PA.Education Equity: Reading Settlement Inspires Coalition-Building Initiative
12Proactive Outreach: Promoting Equal OpportunityThe PA Human Relations Act charges the commission with promoting goodwill and cultural understanding in order to minimize or eliminate discrimination. In 2011-12, the commission made a concerted effort to increase these efforts by strengthening existing partnerships, engaging new partners in promoting equal opportunity, and more fully engaging commissioners in planning and conducting outreach.Commissioners and staff members speak to community groups, share information at meetings and conferences, and make formal training presentations on a wide array of topics related to enforcing non-discrimination law and promoting equal opportunity. PHRC participated in or led over 200 educational events or formal trainings throughout the state in 2011-12. Training for K-12 students, teachers and administrators; local law enforcement ofcials, attorneys, employers, housing providers, civil rights professionals and others is often held in conjunction with PHRC Advisory Councils, Local Human Relations Commissions, federal and state agencies and private organizations around the state. One example of successful efforts to forge partnerships to further equal opportunity was the formation this year of the Tri-State Human Relations Coalition, a group of local human relations commissions and civil rights organizations in Southeast PA, for which PHRC provides meeting space and technical support, and participates as a member. PA Interagency Taskforce on Community Activities and Relations (formerly Taskforce on Civil Tension) Retirements of long-serving outreach staff members in 2011-12 in part inspired a name change and revision of the way in which the PA Interagency Task Force on Community Activities and Relations tracks incidents that may lead to intergroup tension in PA communities. The group, consisting of public and private advocacy organizations and law enforcement, gathers reports of incidents that may lead to civil tension. PHRC compiles and forwards information on reported incidents to entities that either have appropriate legal jurisdiction, or may be located in the community in which events reportedly occurred. The goal is both to help ensure that incidents are addressed appropriately and to prevent continued or escalating tension. The group meets regularly to share best practices for promoting equal opportunity and fostering good will and harmony between ethnic, racial, religious and cultural groups. Monthly meetings included presentations by the Center for Rural PA, US Citizenship & Immigration Services, FBI, Center for Safe Schools, and Latino Hispanic American Community Center of Harrisburg. PHRC participates in a similar regional taskforce in Philadelphia.PHRC Advisory Councils PHRC currently has six active Advisory Councils, in Blair, Cambria, Centre, Montgomery, Monroe and York counties, that serve to extend our outreach in communities around the state, and to refer complaints and local concerns to the commission. During 2011-12, the commission worked to strengthen relationships with the councils, clarify their roles and build on their past successes as champions of civil rights in their respective communities.Advisory Councils, in conjunction with PHRC, organize and deliver training and educational events, and recognize civil rights heroes in their communities. Highlighted events this year included the St. Francis University Diversity Summit, which included 21 school districts and Johnstown Advisory Council members; joint Photo credit: Juntos
13housing discrimination training with the York County Council; training for East Stroudsburg School District administrators with Monroe County Council; joint training with State College Human Relations Commission and Centre County’s Council; and the annual Montgomery County Civil Rights Awards program. Local Human Relations CommissionsLocal Human Relations Commissions have been in existence for decades, enforcing local ordinances and promoting civil rights issues in communities around the state. PHRC is making a concerted effort to strengthen long-standing partnerships with established commissions and build good working relationships with the many newly-formed commissions. Our goal is to establish procedures for referring complaints in which the local commission protects groups not covered under state law, and to ensure that complainants whose issues are protected under state law do not jeopardize their rights by going to a local commission. The commission plans to step up these efforts over the course of 2012-13.Photos:, facing page from top: U.S. Dept. of Justice Regional Dir. Harpre-et Mohta and DOJ Conciliation Specialist Knight Sor with PHRC Asst. Dir. of Educ.ation & Community Svc. Ann Van Dyke at a Civil Tension Task-force Mtg. prior to her retirement; Commissioner Ismael Arcelay, and community member Angel Gonzales discussing police relationships with Latino residents in Norristown, Montgomery County.Photos, from top, this page: PHRC Education Attorney Sharon Lane (retired, 2012) and Chairman Gerry Robinson laying groundwork for our Education Equity Initiative ; PHRC Exec. Dir. JoAnn Edwards & civil rights activist Jesse Jackson at a Millersville University event; Chief Counsel Michael Hardiman, who retired early in 2012-13 after serving at PHRC providing expert civil rights counsel for over three decades.
14Fees for service animalsHandicapped parking deniedNo teenagersEnglish only... All are illegal.Fair Housing is Your Right.Learn more about your rights & how to le a complaint atwww.phrc.state.pa.usor call 717-787-9780 or 717-787-7279 (TTY users)Language translation and disability services provided on request.The U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds PHRC eorts to promote equal opportunity in housing.
15Case Statistics: Discrimination ProleCases Docketed by County and Type**Docketed cases include all those for which an investigation was initiated. Cases found to be non-jurisdictional, led in er-ror or withdrawn prior to an investigation are not included in this number.The county listed is the county in which the respondent is located. Out-of-state respondents are responsible parties located in other states, but who have employees, tenants or businesses located in Pennsylvania.E = EmploymentH = HousingPA = Public AccommodationsED = EducationCP = Commercial Property County E H PA ED CP Total Out Of state51 14 1 66ADAMS9 1 10ALLEGHENY261 46 14 13 334ARMSTRONG2 2BEAVER20 7 1 1 29BEDFORD7 7BERKS57 3 4 4 68BLAIR19 3 22BRADFORD2 1 3BUCKS80 11 12 2 105BUTLER14 14CAMBRIA14 3 4 1 22CARBON7 7CENTRE18 2 1 21CHESTER70 10 3 83CLARION3 3CLEARFIELD14 14CLINTON5 5COLUMBIA12 1 13CRAWFORD5 5CUMBERLAND100 1 101DAUPHIN187 7 11 4 1 210DELAWARE104 11 17 2 134ELK5 5ERIE40 3 3 1 47FAYETTE15 4 2 21FRANKLIN15 1 1 17GREENE12 12HUNTINGDON1 1 2INDIANA9 1 1 11JEFFERSON4 3 7LACKAWANNA29 2 2 33LANCASTER68 10 4 1 83LAWRENCE10 5 15County E H PA ED CP TotalLEBANON25 2 2 29LEHIGH42 6 2 50LUZERNE54 54LYCOMING30 2 32MCKEAN4 4MERCER30 5 35MIFFLIN4 1 5MONROE24 1 25MONTGOMERY191 26 14 2 2 235MONTOUR6 6NORTHAMPTON23 4 2 2 31NORTHUMBERLAND12 2 14PERRY1 1PHILADELPHIA388 34 33 13 468PIKE1 1 2POTTER2 2SCHUYLKILL8 1 9SNYDER3 3SOMERSET9 1 10SULLIVAN2 2SUSQUEHANNA1 1TIOGA2 2UNION9 9VENANGO5 1 6WARREN2 2WASHINGTON26 4 4 1 35WAYNE5 5WESTMORELAND54 9 2 1 66WYOMING5 1 6YORK105 7 6 6 124StateWide Total 2,341 243 157 59 4 2,804
16*Complainants self-identify age, race, sex, ancestry and national origin.Basis of Discrimination: Protected Classes*Age* E H ED Total40 – 42 24 2443 – 45 32 3246 – 48 41 4149 – 51 71 7152 – 54 88 8855 – 57 107 10758 – 60 83 8361 – 63 61 3 6464 – 66 65 1 6667 – 69 46 4670 – 72 9 973 – 75 14 1476 – 78 4 2 679 – 81 4 485 - 87 1 190 - 91 1 1Total 650 6 1 657Ancestry* E H CP PA ED TotalAcadian/Cajun 1 1African 2 1 3American 15 15Dominican 1 1Egyptian 1 1English 2 2Filipino 2 2Hispanic 61 1 9 1 72Indian 3 3 2 8Iranian 1 1Jamaican 2 2Latino 4 1 5Lebanese 1 1Multiple 1 1Pakistani 1 1Puerto Rican 11 11Russian 1 1Total 108 3 1 13 3 128Race* E H CP PA ED TotalAfrican-American 667 90 1 67 35 860Asian 7 1 1 2 11Bi-Racial 14 5 19Black 34 4 38Caucasian 69 3 3 2 77Complainant’s race & known association with another person4 12 1 17Total 795 111 2 75 39 1,022Sex* E H PA ED CP TotalFemale 571 22 16 9 1 619Female & Pregnant 96 96Male 164 1 7 5 177Total 831 23 23 14 1 892
17Basis of Discrimination: Protected Classes, cont.Religion E H PA ED Total7th Day Adventist 2 2Atheism 1 1 2Baptist 3 3Belief in Book of Revelation 2 2Buddhism 1 1Christianity 19 6 25Complainant’s religious creed & association w/ another person2 2Hinduism 2 3 5Islam 52 2 8 1 63Israelite 1 1Jehovah Witness 1 1Judaism 11 1 2 14Methodist 1 1Non-Catholic 2 1 3Non-Christian 1 1No work on Sunday 3 3Pentecostal 4 4Roman Catholicism 1 2 1 4Strongly held belief 3 3Total 109 6 19 6 140National Origin E H PA ED TotalAfrica 2 2Albania 7 7Central African Re-public 4 4Chile 1 1China 3 2 2 2 9Cuba 4 1 5Dominican Republic 12 12Ecuador 1 1Egypt 18 1 1 20Ethiopia 1 1Germany 1 1Ghana 2 1 3Guyana 2 2Haiti 4 4India 6 3 3 12Iran – Islamic Republic 5 5Jamaica 9 9Jordan 1 1Kenya 2 2Liberia 2 2Mexico 3 3Morocco 2 1 3Nigeria 4 4Pakistan 2 2Palestinian Territory 2 2Philippines 8 8Poland 3 3Puerto Rico 9 4 13Romania 11 11Russian Federation 1 1Sierra Leone 1 1Spain 1 1Suriname 2 1 3Trinidad and Tobago 3 3Tunisia 1 1Ukraine 1 1 1 3United States 10 1 11Venezuela 1 1Total 148 13 9 7 177
18Disability E H CP PA ED TotalCognitive21 3 2 26Hearing20 17 8 45Immunological 16 2 1 1 20Mobility/Joints 169 15 6 190Multiple Other386 53 12 3 454Neurological53 6 9 4 72Psychological161 26 6 2 195Respiratory44 1 2 3 50Vision26 1 1 28Total896 121 1 48 14 1,080Basis of Discrimination: Protected Classes, cont.E = EmploymentH = HousingPA = Public AccommodationsED = EducationCP = Commercial PropertyMisc. Class E H TotalUse of Guide or Sup-port Animal2 2Trainer of Guide or Support Animal1 1Abortion or Steriliztion** 5 5GED* 1 1Total 6 3 9*Holding a General Education Development certicate vs. a high school diploma. **Refusal to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures.Retaliation E H PA ED TotalAssisted Investigation 85 1 86Filed PHRC Complaint 164 21 10 2 197Otherwise Opposed Unlawful Activity638 14 19 14 685Provided Information 11 11Testied 1 1Total899 35 30 16 980Familial Status H TotalDesignee of parent or other person with custody3 3Parent or other person with legal custody8 8Obtaining legal custody of child under 181 1Total 12 12
Contact us for:• Equal Opportunity Training or Speakers• Publications on Discrimination & Equal Opportunity717-787-4410•phrc@pa.govwww.phrc.state.pa.us
“The practice or policy of discrimination against individuals or groups by reason of their race, color, familial status, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, handicap or disability, use of guide or support animals because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals is a matter of concern of the Commonwealth. Such discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest, threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, and undermines the foundations of a free democratic state. The denial of equal employment, housing and public accommodation opportunities because of such discrimination, and the consequent failure to utilize the productive capacities of individuals to their fullest extent, deprives large segments of the population of the Commonwealth of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of living, necessitates their resort to public relief and intensies group conicts, thereby resulting in grave injury to the public health and welfare, compels many individuals to live in dwellings which are substandard, unhealthful and overcrowded, resulting in racial segregation in public schools and other community facilities, juvenile delinquency and other evils, thereby threatening the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the Commonwealth and its inhabitants.” – Pennsylvania Human Relations Act2011-2012 Annual Report