HARRISBURG – The state judiciary and its employees are immune from application of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, according to a recent unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
On July 21, Supreme Court justice Debra Todd issued the ruling in the case of Renner v. Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Et.Al, in the process upholding prior decisions reached in the matter in both the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.
Todd found the PHRA “violates separation of powers principles” as it related to the state judiciary and its governance over its own employees, whether it was applied by the executive or judicial branches of government.
“Drawing upon our Constitution and in accord with the direction of our case law, it becomes clear that application of the PHRA, no matter how admirable its goals, to judiciary personnel is in direct conflict with the judiciary's constitutionally-granted exclusive and independent right to administer the courts and to promulgate rules and policies regarding judicial employees, as well as its exclusive and independent authority to select, discharge, and supervise its employees,” Todd said.
“To apply the PHRA to the judiciary would manifestly interfere with these personnel decisions. We find this to be true whether the PHRA is applied by the executive branch through the [Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission], or by the courts themselves. Regardless, it is an incursion into our exclusive and independent domain to supervise judiciary personnel.”
Michael Renner, a parole officer with Lehigh County since 1989, disclosed to his supervisor and Chief Probation Officer John J. Sikora in July 2011 that he had been diagnosed with a serious medical condition. He was hospitalized at that time for said condition and subsequently absent from work on a medical leave for four to six weeks.
When he returned to work, Renner claimed to have been harassed about his condition by Sikora and Benefits Manager Mark Surovy over more than two years, leading to his eventual termination in March 2014, for refusing to administer a urine test to an offender under his supervision.
After being dismissed, Renner undertook training as a police officer and was offered employment by both the boroughs of Northampton and Fountain Hill – but these offers were rescinded after the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas issued an order that Renner couldn’t possess a firearm or taser.
Renner believed the Court continues to interfere with his employment opportunities, including but not limited to, providing false and misleading job references to municipal police agencies.
Renner filed suit in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas in November 2016, to which the Court filed preliminary objections. On July 10, 2017, the trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed all claims against the Common Pleas Court with prejudice. Renner appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which upheld the trial court decision – leading Renner to appeal to the Supreme Court.
After examining conflicting case law as to whether PHRA cases belonged before the PHRC or the courts and whether it violated the separation of powers doctrine, Todd pointed to a 1996 ruling in First Judicial District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, where the Court ruled that the PHRC was not permitted to levy jurisdiction over the judiciary.
“The [previous] issue before the Court was limited to the PHRC’s ability to adjudicate an alleged claim of discrimination against the Court; we were not asked to inquire into alternative forums for bringing discrimination claims or whether application of the PHRA violated separation of powers principles,” Todd said.
“Our Court’s one sentence response to the dissent’s suggestion that there would be no forum to adjudicate a claim of discrimination was devoid of analysis and was not essential to the Court’s holding.”
Todd explained the judiciary holds sole governance and jurisdiction over its own employees by applying its Code of Conduct.
“As the Pennsylvania Constitution vests in the judiciary the exclusive power over the administration of the courts, rulemaking, and the supervision of its personnel, it is the Court, and only the Court, that provides protection for employees subject to discrimination, independent of the executive and legislative branches, through its own rules, policies and procedures,” Todd said.
“There is a meaningful avenue of reporting and processing claims of discrimination or harassment under the Code of Conduct with respect to county-level court employees, with the president judge of each judicial district responsible for disseminating and enforcing the Code of Conduct.”
All of Todd’s colleague justices joined her opinion. Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor authored his own concurring opinion.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 52 MAP 2019
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 1479 C.D. 2017
Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas case 2016-CV-3195
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com