Return to flip book view

EqualOpportunity Closing the gapPA Human Relations Commission 2012-13 Annual Report

2Dear Governor Corbett and General Assembly,The PA Human Relations Act requires us to report to you annually on alleged acts of discrimination in schools, workplaces and communities across PA. These statistics represent Pennsylvanians who have faced barriers in their eorts to build better lives for themselves and their fami-lies. Each case represents a person who has hit a barrier in getting a job, a home, an education or a service – a person who believes someone has taken away his or her legal right to equal opportunity.Each case also represents a person who is willing to take the time and eort to help ensure that what happened to them does not happen to others. For every person who les a complaint, there are dozens of others who are not willing to come forward or don’t know their rights.Barriers to equal opportunity hinder economic pros-perity for all Pennsylvanians. We appreciate your continued support and partnership in our eorts to remove these barriers.We are striving to nd new ways to work more eciently and cost-eectively without compromising anyone’s rights or sacricing the quality of investigations.PHRC’s Mediation Program, now oered as an option in employment discrimination complaints, is one of several ways we are seeking to resolve cases faster. We hope to eliminate discriminatory workplace practices, bring quicker relief to victims and ultimately, reduce the num-ber of cases led in court. This will save Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars and improve our business climate. Partnership with you, through Governor’s Innovation Oce funding, has made this pilot program possible. This report outlines other commission initiatives under-taken with the goal of serving Pennsylvanians in a way that achieves the greatest possible positive impact on our families and economy.Gerald S. RobinsonChairmanJoAnn L. EdwardsExecutive Director

3U.S. Census data show that blacks, Latinos, women and people with disabilities in Pennsylvania face greater hurdles in obtaining education, jobs and nding homes than others do. Many of these challenges are due to long-standing disparities in income, educational attainment and housing conditions that persist despite decades of public eort and investment.Persistent gaps in standard of living for minorities are often the long-term result of discriminatory practices in school discipline, grading, program access and other inequities that lead to high dropout rates, high unemployment, and ultimately, high crime and incar-ceration rates. Unequal pay and other workplace disparities, com-bined with denied access to housing near good jobs and educational opportunities, contribute to a con-tinuing vicious cycle of poverty and denied oppor-tunity. This hits women, people with disabilities and their families doubly hard.PHRC is in the midst of a strategic planning process to enable us to focus eorts on uncovering and eliminating the underlying causes of these persistent gaps. We hope you will join us in our eorts to address the long-lasting eects of discrimination and inequity, and eliminate the root causes of prosperity gaps through investigation, and targeted, research-based educational outreach.Thank you again for supporting us in these eorts to build a more equitable, prosperous Pennsylvania!Sincerely,Gerald S. RobinsonChairmanJoAnn L. EdwardsExecutive DirectorContentsIntroductory LetterCommissioners Investigation & EnforcementSettlement HighlightsSta SpotlightEducational OutreachCase Statistics pages 2-3pages 4-5pages 6-12pages 9-11page 12pages 13-15pages 16-19

4CommissionersPHRC Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and conrmed by the Senate to serve ve-year terms. They are volunteers, selected to further the interests of the commonwealth in ending and preventing discrimination.They are geographically diverse; representing Southeastern PA, the Pittsburgh area, the Lehigh Valley and Central Pennsylvania. They are racially and ethnically diverse and represent dierent religious traditions and political view-points. They come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds, including education, journalism, medicine, law, public administration, religious ministry and the military.They work to further the commission’s mission in partnership with public and private organizations representing nu-merous ethnic, racial, gender, age-based, family, disability and religious advocacy organizations, as well as with other civil rights law enforcement organizations on the state and federal level. During monthly meetings, the commission deliberates over cases which have not been resolved through concilia-tion, as well as court decisions and other issues relevant to PHRC’s mission. Throughout the past year, they have been engaged in a strategic planning process to guide the commission’s work over the next three years. The resulting three-year strategic plan will seek to address current challenges and trends in civil rights, as well as agency human, nancial and technological resources. The process will provide a roadmap for moving the agency forward while acknowledging and celebrating challenges met and progress made in the past.Strategic Planning Kicko — Commissioners and sta members at the April 2013 Strategic Planning Kicko in Harrisburg. Front row l-r, Chairman Gerald S. Robinson, Commissioner Sylvia Waters, Vicechairperson Dr. Raquel Yiengst, Executive Director JoAnn Edwards, Commissioner Rev. James Earl Garmon, Sr. ; Middle row l-r, Philadelphia Regional Director Juan Xu, Director of Housing and Commercial Property Stephanie Chapman, Special Assistant to the Executive Director Tammy McElfresh, Chief Counsel Kathy Morrison, Administrative Ocer Kheea Anderson, Harrisburg Regional Director Heather Roth, Commissioner Pamela McGaha; Back row l-r, Director of Communications Shannon Powers, Executive Secretary Debbie Walters, Permanent Hearing Examiner Carl Summerson, Pittsburgh Regional Director Adam Stalczynski and Commissioner Terence Farrell.

5CommissionersDr. Daniel D. YunSecretaryLansdale(Resigned 4/’13)S. Kweilin NassarPittsburghPamela McGahaBethlehemThe Honorable Terence FarrellWest ChesterIsmael ArcelayAllentown(resigned 11/’12)J. Whyatt MondesirePhiladelphiaSylvia WatersOberlinRev. Dr. James Earl Garmon, Sr..Assistant SecretarySecretary (May 2013)PittsburghM. Joel BolsteinWarringtonDr. Raquel O. YiengstVice ChairSinking SpringGerald S. RobinsonChairmanLancaster

6 Investigations Enforcement&By the Numbers*Cases docketed during the year 2,207Discriminatory acts alleged (counts)** 3,687Bases of discrimination alleged** 3,033Cases pending at beginning of the year 3,887Cases reopened upon review 7Cases closed during the year 2,960 (48.57% of total cases)Percentage of cases closed within a year 48% Cases pending at year end 3,127 Median age of pending cases 395 daysAverage age of pending cases 511 daysSettlements 845 (28.55 %)Settlements prior to investigative nding 807 (27%)Probable Cause ndings 54Settlements after probable cause nding 38 (1%)Closed after no probable cause nding 1,725 (58.3% of closings)Cases closed due to court lings 182 (40 state, 142 federal)Closed for other reasons*** 209Public Hearings 3 Final orders after public hearing 1*Does not include complaints led dually with the EEOC or HUD in which PHRC is not conducting the investigation.**One complaint may include multiple bases and discriminatory acts.***Withdrawn, lack of jurisdiction, parties could not be located or failed to cooperate, etc.

70100200300400500600700HousingDisability* 42.0%Race/color 16.1%Retaliation 11.9%Familial Status 7.7% Sex 6.9%Age 5.4%National origin 4.2%Multiple class** 2.3%Ancestry 1.5%Overall, disability-related complaints were the most frequent allegations, making up 20.1% of the total. Race/color based complaints followed closely at 19.5%, retaliation at 19.1%, then sex at 15.9 % and age at 13.9%.*Disability complaints include those involving the use, handling or training of support animals. **Multiple class complaints are based on both sex and race, when neither by itself applies. (i.e.. Black males were not discriminated against, but black females were or vice versa.)EmploymentRetaliation 20.1% Race/color 19.0% Sex 17.3% Disability* 17.0%Age 15.7%Ancestry 3.9% National origin 3.1%Multiple class** 1.5%Public AccommodationsRace/color 32.2% Disability* 31.0%Retaliation 13.2%Sex 8.3%Ancestry 5.0% National origin 5.0%Multiple class** <1%EducationDisability* 36.4%Race/color 27.3% Retaliation 20.0%Sex 9.1%National origin 3.1% Ancestry 1.8% Multiple class** <1%Basis of Complaints by TypeSpecic numbers and breakdowns of bases within each protected class category can be found on pages 16-19.Basis of Complaints

8Re-Engineering InitiativeIn 2012-13, PHRC continued an initiative begun in late 2011 to strengthen enforcement eorts by streamlining investigation procedures using four main strategies: 1) Involving attorneys early in investigations to help super-visors and investigators better recognize case elements that will speed investigations and improve investigative techniques, 2) Increasing sta training to improve com-munication, procedural knowledge and uniformity across the agency, 3) Re-evaluating and redesigning procedures to eliminate ineciency and duplication of work with-out compromising investigative quality or either party’s rights; and 4) Increasing use of available technology to improve processes and communication among divisions and regions.Successes of the ongoing project included closing 48 percent of cases in 2012-13 within one year of ling. The commission closed 79 housing cases led dually with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, within 100 days. This was an increase of 16.8 percent over the year and a 25.3 percent in-crease over the past two years. This signicantly improves our ability to obtain federal fund-ing for HUD cases.ROOT, an initiative to focus on closing the oldest 25 cases in an investigator’s caseload, helped investigators close 125 cases during the 2012-‘13 federal scal year, helping PHRC meet contractual obligations and obtain $81,000 in federal funding tied to the commission’s con-tract with EEOC.Public HearingsWhen an investigation nds probable cause –sucient information to support the allegations − and the case fails to settle, the commission holds a public hearing. A hear-ing examiner or panel of commissioners hears the case, presented by a commission attorney representing the commonwealth’s interests, and an attorney or other rep-resentative of the party the complaint was led against. Commissioners review the entire case record, then vote on a recommendation from commission’s public hearing examiner and issue a nal legal order. Of 20 cases placed on the public hearing docket in 2012-’13, 15 settled before a hearing could be held. The com-mission held three public hearings and issued one nal order.The commission ordered K-12 Stang of Philadelphia to pay Paul Masumba of Philadelphia $1,430 for discriminating against him based on his Kenyan national origin. Masumba alleged that K-12 failed to pay him for 27 days worked as a substitute teacher at a charter school during the fall of 2011. The company had failed to answer the complaint and did not appear at the public hearing. On June 25, when the order took eect, interest brought his award to $1,573. Enforcement Highlights“I can honestly state with greatest satisfaction that the completed work has resulted in added safety and convenience for pedestrians....I have observed handicapped people using the intersections with increased ease and condence previously absent. Likewise, motorists recognize the crosswalk lines and exercise greater caution in those areas. I want to thank everyone who made the improvements possible...especially [PHRC investigator] Yvonne Aguayo for her ecient and professional aid in addressing this issue.”- Complainant whose disability complaint resulted in accessibility im-provements to intersections in his community

90%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%2010-11 2011-12 2012-13Case Settlement RateFiscal YearPA's Fair Employment Case Settlement Rate Exceeds the U.S. AveragePennsylvaniaU.S. Average*EEOC*U.S. average is based on settlement rates of other state fair employment practice agencies.Enforcement Highlights: SettlementsSettlements in 2012-2013, whether cash payments or other measures with monetary value, totaled more than $6.7 million. These payments directly beneted over 127,829 Pennsylvanians. Thousands more beneted from improved workplace and school policies, better access to public places and the elimination of illegal practices. Most PHRC settlements are not public, due to condenti-ality clauses. Following are general descriptions of a few signicant settlements during the year, and more specic detail of exceptional agreements in class-action cases and cases prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.Education & Public AccommodationsIn education and public accommodations cases involv-ing students, four investigations of racial harassment in schools ended in settlements requiring the districts to es-tablish non-discrimination policies, and incident-report-ing and investigation procedures. In one of the districts, several parents were alleging persistent harassment over a period of years. As a result of the settlement, the district stepped up eorts to recruit a more diverse faculty and communicate with parents and the community. Collec-tively over 4,800 students and employees in two Western PA districts are beneting from improved policies and eorts to increase diversity and cultural awareness.Several complaints against schools in Southeast PA involved allegations of unequal discipline based on race. In two instances, harassment was also alleged, and in another, retaliation. All of the students were African-American. Investigations in two cases found probable cause before the cases were settled. The third, a consoli-dation of several complaints, settled prior to a nding. Settlements required the schools to remove student disciplinary records, provide annual reports on disciplin-ary actions by ethnicity, and undergo sta training on disparate discipline.The mother of one student thanked commission sta for caring enough to thoroughly investigate and hear her concerns. The student, who was experiencing extreme emotional distress due to persistent harassment, was able to graduate with a clean disciplinary record. In addition to other settlement terms, the district paid the family $10,000.Several other signicant settlements in educational set-tings involved disability issues. In one highly publicized case settled by the U.S. Department of Justice, a private residential school in Central PA refused to admit an HIV-positive 13-year old boy. The student’s family was award-ed $700,000 in damages and the school was ordered to make policy changes and train their sta in HIV sensitivity

10and prevention. The school is both a public accommoda-tion and a housing facility.A settlement with a career and technical school made the facility and classes accessible for a student who used a wheelchair. Facility improvements included construc-tion of an exterior ramp and bathroom alterations. Some classes were relocated to the rst oor of the building and the school agreed to further assessment and recom-mendations by a non-governmental advocacy organiza-tion.A third disability case involved a military veteran re-turning to college after his service. He alleged he was disciplined due to post-traumatic stress disorder, which made it dicult for him to communicate under stress. As a result of PHRC sta eorts, the college agreed to allow the student to work independently with another faculty member in his major, rather than in the problematic class setting.Throughout the year, the com-mission continued to monitor terms of a conciliation agree-ment with the Reading School District which sought to ensure equal educational opportunity and equal employment oppor-tunity following a public plea for commission intervention in the predominantly Hispanic district. A 2011 public hearing and a series of recommendations put forth in 2012 led to the ve-year, 96-term agreement designed to address issues raised in the hearings. The commission also continued to monitor a similar agreement with the Pittsburgh School District, which settled a 1992 complaint by a group called Advocates for African-American Students. The complaint alleged that the district had discriminated against minority students with unfair grading, with a disproportionate discipline and assignments to special education and other issues. In a 2006 settlement, the district agreed to take about 100 steps − including improvements in instruction and employee training − to better serve black students. The agreement was extended through August of 2014.Housing & Commercial PropertyIn one instance, a Philadelphia apartment complex charged a $60 monthly pet fee to a tenant with a disabil-ity, while charging lower fees to tenants without dis-abilities. The landlord was ordered to renew the renter’s lease for a year and oer rent abatement of $2,160 – the amount of excess fees charged.Several housing cases involved refusal of apartment facili-ties to provide reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities. In most instances, accommodations re-quested were minor adjustments in policies. For example, allowing a tenant with an anxiety disorder to live in an apartment with an interior door, and allowing a ve-day grace period in order for disability income to be depos-ited in a tenant’s bank before rent payments were made. In another instance, a public housing authority denied a tenant with conges-tive heart failure the use of a reserved handicapped spot. The housing author-ity argued that the tenant could use the space available to anyone with a handi-capped license plate. The housing author-ity reimbursed the complainant $2,750 for travel expenses, and humiliation and suering.In another instance, a homeowners’ association denied a Puerto Rican man the opportunity to serve on the elected board of directors, claiming he was not in good standing. He alleged that the decision was made based on his na-tional origin. The investigation found that he was indeed in good standing and that another non-minority person was given the opportunity to run despite actually not be-ing in good standing for the year. The settlement required the association to pay the homeowner $2,000 and permit Enforcement Highlights: SettlementsConnued

11him to run for a seat on the board.Discriminatory lending cases were also signicant in 2012-13. One settlement of a complaint in which a woman alleged that a lender refused to nance her home because of her sex and age, paid her $117,000 prior to a nding in the case.In December of 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice an-nounced a multi-state, $175 million settlement with Wells Fargo, combining a PHRC complaint with those from several other states. As part of the settlement, $3.2 million was designated for more than 1,000 Philadelphia bor-rowers who were victims of predatory lending practices. Notices went to African-Americans and Hispanics who lived in Philadelphia and took out home loans with Wells Fargo from 2004 through 2009, including the amount they would receive if they chose to participate in the settlement. Through eorts of legal sta and interns, funds allocated to Philadelphians increased by $1.2 million. This eort, combined with media outreach, achieved the highest rate of settlement participation in the country, with 832 Pennsylvanians receiving compensation for unfair loans.EmploymentWith employment discrimination making up the bulk of PHRC investigations, the commission settled 102 employ-ment cases for amounts over $10,000. These higher-amount settlements included 26 sex discrimination settlements, 24 age discrimination, 23 disability discrimi-nation, 13 race discrimination, nine based on ancestry or national origin, ve on retaliation, and two multiple-class settlements (sex plus race).A sexual harassment complaint involved a $75,000 settlement in a case in which a female account manager alleged that she was held down by a male stripper and subjected to a lap dance and sexual assault — paid for by her manager — who allegedly watched and laughed during the incident.A longtime manufacturing worker alleged ongoing ha-rassment, involving the displaying of a noose and racial slurs and harassment based on her gender – she was the only black female employee in the plant. The investiga-tion found probable cause. The settlement included reimbursement for retirement contributions lost when she was forced to take an extended medical leave, and mandated anti-harassment training for company employ-ees.In an age discrimination complaint involving eight em-ployees of an educational entity, an investigation deter-mined that all eight were paid less than younger employ-ees in similar jobs. The company insisted that the younger employees were paid according to a union agreement, but settled the case, paying each worker $16,000 and changing a policy to prevent future inequities.Enforcement Highlights: SettlementsConnued PHRC InitiativesIn addition to Re-Engineering and Strategic Planning initiatives described earlier in this report, PHRC launched three initiatives late in the 2012 -13 year: a Pilot Media-tion Program for employment discrimination complaints, a Fair Housing Hotline, and Fair Housing Partnership Grants funded through HUD in three PA counties.The Mediation Pilot, funded throught the Governor’s Oce of Innovation, is based on an EEOC model that has been successful for over 20 years. The program, which is voluntary for both parties in employment cases, aims to resolve cases faster and avoid prolonged litigation and the potential of court lings. The new toll-free PA Fair Housing Hotline gives faster help to those facing housing discrimination. Whether they are facing eviction or need help ling a complaint or understanding their rights, dialing 855-866-5718 will get callers to the help they need.Three Fair Housing Partnership Grants funded projects conducted by partner organizations, and aimed at in-forming renters of their rights and landlords of their fair housing responsibilities. Data from these initiatives were not yet available at the end of the scal year.

12Enforcement Highlights: Sta Spotlightprofessionalismdiplomacy • excellenceintegrity • dedication“a pleasure to work with”“made a positive difference in my life”kindness“masterfully handled a dicult situation” “relentless in pursuit of fair & equitable treatment”- sta descriptors in correspondence from complainants, respondents and their legal counselLyle Wood is animated and enthusiastic in describing his work at PHRC. He is certainly not unique in being passionate about the work of investigating cases. He is, however, unique in the background, experience and per-spective he brings to the work. Wood, an investigative supervisor in Pittsburgh, specializ-ing in housing discrimination, has been with PHRC for 24 years. As a University of Pittsburgh history major, he spent four months doing archaeological digs in Afghanistan – a skill he says comes in handy in digging up relevant case facts. He is also intimately familiar with the challenges of running large housing facilities, having spent several years as a general manager for a facility management company.“Investigating is more of an art than a science,” he says. “You’re looking at evidence to determine whether there is probable cause, then connecting the dots. Investigators are skilled people who must work within a framework, not a gospel,” he explains, noting that investigations are as unique as the incidents, people and organizations we are investigating. “Just the facts, ma’am.” He laughs, using a sixties TV-dra-ma reference to explain what investigators need in order to do their jobs. “You don’t have to convince me. You just have to provide the documentation that supports your side of the case.” He gives attorneys similar advice, saying, “These are not pleadings to the Supreme Court.” “Our integrity and our honesty are our biggest asset,” Wood says, quoting a respondent. “I didn’t agree with everything you said, but you were honest.”Wood is an eloquent spokesman for the work of investi-gating discrimination and educating Pennsylvanians on their rights. Deductive reasoning, plus archaeological skills, plus integrity makes a great equation for an investigator!

13Educational Outreach:Prevention & PartnershipsLe – Chairman Gerry Robinson, Execuve Director JoAnn Edwards, Director of Compliance Jim Kayer and Aorney Kyle Allen leading a panel discussion on the PA Human Relaons Act and PHRC iniaves for OGC University, a training program for state agency legal counsel.PHRC’s mission is not only to seek to end and prevent discrimination through enforcement of the laws, but through educating Pennsyl-vanians on their legal rights and responsibili-ties. The commission conducts several kinds of educational outreach to accomplish this aspect of our mission. The pie chart on the following page illustrates 181 outreach events, broken into four catego-ries: 1)training resulting from settlements − 13 events, or seven percent of the total; 2)for-mal training requested by employers or other organizations – 16 events, or nine percent; 3) regular meetings or events held in partnership with our Interagency Taskforce on Community Relations & Activities, local human relations commissions and our PHRC advisory councils – 50 events or 27 percent; and 4) events such as conference presentations, diversity seminars, community events, celebrations recognizing ethnic groups, awards programs, civil rights l-r; Execuve Director JoAnn Edwards, Montgomery County Advisory Council Chair Andrea Lawful-Trainer, Chairman of Montgomery County Board of Commissioners and former State Representave Josh Shapiro and Chairman Gerry Robinson at PHRC’s Montgomery County Advisory Council annual Civil Rights Awards Banquet.Connued on next page

14Training by Request9% (16)Training for Settlement7% (13)Local Councils and Task Forces27% (50)Outreach Events57% (102)Outreach & Training HighlightsTop right – Aorney Kelly Matos waves at the camera during the Harrisburg Area YWCA’s Annual Race Against Racism in May 2013. Boom right – Invesgators Paul Kanner, Amelia Dryden, Yvonne Aguayo, Gretchen Reese and Harrisburg Regional Director Heather Roth seng a brisk pace for PHRC’s Race Against Racism team of 14. rallies and other events – this constitutes 57 percent of commission outreach, or 102 events.In addition to grassroots educational outreach and formal technical training on how to comply with non-discrimination laws, the commission conducts regular media outreach and sup-plies publications on request and through the agency website, www.phrc.state.pa.us. This outreach is not represented in the pie chart.Regional HighlightsAmong many regional alliances, Pittsburgh staff members participate in quarterly forums organized by the YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh’s Center for Race and Gender Equity during which a network of 20 nonprots, universities, economic development organizations, neigh-borhood groups and government agencies explore solutions to inequity issues that hinder economic prosperity in minority communities. Pittsburgh’s ofce also participates in the U.S. Attorneys’ Community Police Relations Group, which aims to address racial tensions between police and urban Pittsburgh neighborhoods. In response to a University of Pittsburgh survey identifying underemployment, unemployment, and high recidivism rates as systemic cause of crime and community−police tensions, PHRC has been advising the group on better recruit-ment and hiring strategies, ways to combat discriminatory bullying and non-discriminatory approaches to student discipline.Connued on next page“Yes, we work with companies who are in trouble. But we also work with companies who volunteer to examine their policies and practices because they want to get out in front and improve the diversity of their workforce.”-Pittsburgh Regional Director Adam Stalczynski

15PHRC’s Philadelphia ofce is situated in the heart of Chinatown, making outreach to Asian-American communities a distinct focus. The ofce is located in close proximity to a large number of local human relations commissions and fair housing organizations that serve as re-ferral entities, and in some cases, enforce local ordinances. PHRC participates in newly formed regional coalition of human relations organi-zations and hosted training for the group on mediating discrimination complaints. Regional ofce staff participated in ADL’s Cyber-bullying Conference and a number of diversity confer-ences and celebrations.PHRC’s Montgomery County Advisory Council, the most active of the commission’s current six councils, partners with PHRC to host an an-nual civil rights awards program, a legislative breakfast to discuss pending legislation that would amend the PA Human Relations Act or have a potentially discriminatory effect, and other events to keep area residents informed of their rights. PHRC’s Harrisburg ofce serves a 39-county area, which includes ve PHRC advisory coun-cils, in Blair, Centre, Monroe and York counties and Johnstown. The councils partner with PHRC to broaden community outreach. Over the year, Harrisburg staff members worked with York to rebuild the city’s local human relations Above le – Students from Harrisburg’s Sci-Tech High dem-onstrate their robocs project at a PHRC-sponsored event celebrang Women’s History Month. Above right – Execuve Director JoAnn Edwards (far right) with keynote speaker Martha Dodge (le), representaves of other state agencies who co-sponsored the event, and Cookie the robot. Photo credit - PA Ulies Commissioncommission. Staff members participated in a wide range of partnerships, including the new-ly-formed Community Response Network of the YWCA of Greater Harrisburg, which seeks to address racial inequality and tension in schools and communities in the region. One of the primary partnerships PHRC partici-pates in and manages is a network of state and federal agencies and non-governmental groups known as the PA Interagency Taskforce on Community Activities & Relations. Originally formed to address racial unrest stemming from events like organized hate activity, the group tracks incidents that may lead to tension be-tween racial and other groups, refers inquiries as appropriate to address each situation and works collectively to reduce the potential for tension in schools and communities. The group shares best practices to increase equal oppor-tunity and appropriately address conict.Invesgator Deven Price with students from Camp Curn Elementary School in Harrisburg during 500 Men Reading, an event in celebraon of Naonal Literacy Week.Outreach & Training HighlightsConnued

16 County E H PA ED CP Total Out Of state60 10 4 74ADAMS6 6ALLEGHENY117 33 5 7 162ARMSTRONG0BEAVER20 3 3 26BEDFORD4 4BERKS44 3 2 2 51BLAIR11 2 13BRADFORD7 7BUCKS72 12 5 89BUTLER6 3 9CAMBRIA10 3 13CARBON5 1 6CENTRE16 2 1 19CHESTER63 5 7 2 77CLARION1 1CLEARFIELD6 1 7CLINTON1 1COLUMBIA10 1 11CRAWFORD6 6CUMBERLAND72 4 3 79DAUPHIN198 7 10 3 218DELAWARE79 8 11 4 102ELK6 6ERIE21 3 24FAYETTE9 9FRANKLIN14 4 18FULTON1 1GREENE5 5HUNTINGDON3 1 4INDIANA2 1 1 4JEFFERSON2 3 5LACKAWANNA30 2 3 35LANCASTER71 14 3 1 89LAWRENCE6 2 8County E H PA ED CP TotalLEBANON22 22LEHIGH44 3 1 48LUZERNE39 5 1 45LYCOMING17 17MCKEAN1 1MERCER8 3 1 12MIFFLIN4 4MONROE14 2 2 18MONTGOMERY185 16 13 2 216MONTOUR5 5NORTHAMPTON26 3 2 31NORTHUMBERLAND6 3 9PERRY2 1 3PHILADELPHIA382 23 27 10 1 443PIKE4 1 5POTTER12 1 13SCHUYLKILL2 1 1 1 5SNYDER3 3 6SOMERSET1 3 4SULLIVAN0SUSQUEHANNA1 3 4TIOGA5 5UNION2 1 3VENANGO2 2WARREN1 1WASHINGTON22 5 27WAYNE3 3WESTMORELAND25 5 30WYOMING1 1YORK77 4 2 1 84StateWide Total 1,899 210 103 43 1 2,256*Docketed cases include all those for which an investiga-tion was initiated. Cases found to be non-jurisdictional, led in error 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 PropertyCase Statistics: Discrimination ProleCases Docketed by County & Type*

17E = EmploymentH = HousingPA = Public AccommodationsED = EducationCP = Commercial PropertyCase Statistics: Discrimination ProleBasis of Discrimination: Protected ClassesAge* E H ED Total40 – 42 20 1 2143 – 45 26 1 2746 – 48 28 1 2949 – 51 30 3052 – 54 54 1 5555 – 57 68 1 6958 – 60 65 3 6861 – 63 75 2 7764 – 66 29 4 3367 – 69 28 2870 – 72 19 1973 – 75 9 976 – 78 5 579 – 81 4 484- 89 4 4Total 464 14 0 478Ancestry* E H CP PA ED TotalAcadian/Cajun 2 2African 2 2American 8 8Arab 4 2 6Cuban 1 1Egyptian 1 1Guyanese 2 2Haitian 1 1Hispanic 99 4 4 1 108Indian 2 2Iranian 1 1Italian 1 1Jamaican 1 1Latino 2 2Lebanese 1 1Portuguese 1 1Puerto Rican 9 9West Indian 1 1Total 139 4 0 6 1 150Race* E H CP PA ED TotalAfrican-American 500 39 1 38 15 593American Indian 3 3Asian 5 1 6Bi-Racial 16 2 1 19Black 25 1 26Caucasian 62 1 3 2 68Complainant’s race & known association with another person2 1 3Total 613 45 1 42 17 718*Complainants self-identify age, race, sex, ancestry and national origin.Sex* E H PA ED CP TotalFemale 402 19 8 4 433Female & Pregnant 66 1 67Male 109 1 2 1 113Total 577 21 10 5 0 613

18Case Statistics: Discrimination ProleBasis of Discrimination: Protected ClassesConnued National Origin E H PA ED TotalAfrica 1 1Bangladesh 4 4Benin 1 1Burundi 1 1Camaroon 5 5Chad 1 1China 4 1 5Costa Rica 2 2Cuba 1 1Dominican Republic 2 2Egypt 5 5El Salvador 1 1Ethiopia 1 1Germany 1 1Greece 1 1Guyana 4 4Haiti 2 2India 5 2 7Iran – Islamic Republic 2 2Ireland 1 1Israel 2 2Jamaica 6 6Kenya 1 1Lebanon 1 1Liberia 7 7Morocco 2 2Namibia 1 1 2New Zealand 1 1Niger 6 6Nigeria 4 4Pakistan 1 1Palestinian Territory 1 1Panama 1 1Peru 2 2 4Philippines 1 1Poland 1 1 2Puerto Rico 10 4 14Romania 1 1Russian Federation 4 4Trinidad and Tobago 4 4Ukraine 2 2 4United States 1 1Venezuela 4 4Vietnam 1 1Total 104 12 5 2 123Religion E H PA ED TotalBuddhism 1 1Christianity 18 1 19Hinduism 1 1Islam 35 1 36Israelite 3 3Jehovah’s Witness 6 1 7Judaism 5 3 8Methodist 3 3Protestant 2 2Roman Catholicism 1 1Wiccan 1 1Total 71 6 5 0 82Retaliation E H PA ED TotalAssisted Investigation 25 1 26Filed PHRC Complaint 111 14 3 1 129Otherwise Opposed Unlawful Activity474 16 13 11 514Provided Information 8 1 9Testied 0Total618 32 16 12 678E = EmploymentH = HousingPA = Public AccommodationsED = EducationCP = Commercial Property

19Case Statistics: Discrimination ProleBasis of Discrimination: Protected ClassesConnued Familial Status* H TotalDesignee of parent or other person with custody7 7Domeciled with 1 1Parent or other person with legal custody12 12Person under 18 living with parent or guardian3 3Total 23 23*Only protected in housing.Disability E H CP PA ED TotalCognitive14 1 6 5 26Hearing6 6Immunological 9 1 10Mobility/Joints83 11 5 99Multiple Other287 86 13 8 394Neurological34 5 5 1 45Psychological116 18 8 142Respiratory9 1 10Vision17 2 4 23Total569 131 0 33 22 755Misc. Class E H PA ED TotalUse of Guide or Sup-port Animal3 3 6Trainer of Guide or Support Animal1 1 2Total 0 4 4 0 8E = EmploymentH = HousingPA = Public AccommodationsED = EducationCP = Commercial Property

PA Fair Housing Hotline Toll-free•855•866•5718