Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upholds Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission's dismissal of race discrimination claim, holding that Commission correctly found that complainant's evidence did not support inference of race discrimination.

In Garner, the complainant alleged that he was terminated by his former employer because of his race, alleging that similarly-situated employees of a different race were not terminated for a violation of the company's policy when he was terminated. A hearing was held with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission's hearing examiner, who ultimately recommended that the complainant's Complaint be dismissed and a non-suit be entered in favor of the employer because the complainant failed to present evidence that race was a factor in his termination. Specifically, the evidence presented demonstrated that the complainant took a company ladder to his home and left it there for several weeks. The complainant believed the ladder was the one issued to him by the company when it was, in fact, issued to another employee who had reported it missing to the company. The company then reviewed surveillance tapes that showed the complainant taking the ladder at issue and placing it into his work vehicle. The company then contacted the complainant and asked him if he knew anything about the ladder, which he denied. When confronted with the surveillance tape, the complainant responded, "Oh, that ladder. I have that in my garage," and offered to return it. As a result of this incident and a review of his personnel file—which included discipline for driving a work vehicle under the influence of cocaine, leaving the scene of an accident in his work vehicle and driving his work vehicle with a suspended license—the company made the decision to terminate his employment. In upholding the Commission's decision that the complainant did not present evidence establishing that he was terminated under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of race discrimination, the Commonwealth Court expressly rejected the complainant's argument that he established a "mixed-motives" complaint of discrimination by virtue of his membership in a protected class. Specifically, the court noted that a "case is not a mixed-motives case simply because the employee who is the target of an employment action is the member of a protected class" and stating that the complainant still has the "responsibility to prove with some evidence, direct or indirect, that there was 'an improper reason,' i.e., racial discrimination" for his employer's decision to terminate his employment and he failed to do so.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011