Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in case of Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Tomlinson Agency, Docket No. H-1777.
James Victor Voss, with him Neely & Voss, for appellant.
Mark A. Senick, Assistant General Counsel, with him Sanford Kahn, General Counsel, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 228]
This is an appeal from an adjudication of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission which concluded that the Tomlinson Agency (Appellant) had committed an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of Section 5(h)(1) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. (Act).
On March 7, 1972, Ralph DeCostro (DeCostro) and Leslie Strader (Strader), both employees of the Pennsylvania
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 229]
Human Relations Commission (Commission),*fn1 entered the office of Appellant seeking information on available rental property. DeCostro appeared at Appellant's office and made the initial inquiry as to available units at the Riverside Village Apartments (Riverside).*fn2 Joseph Tomlinson, who operates Appellant agency with his wife, his son, and an assistant, informed DeCostro that a two bedroom apartment at Riverside could be had at the monthly rental of $215.00. When he asked if anything else was open, DeCostro was told that there was a one level frame house on California Avenue in Oakmont, Pennsylvania, which was listed at $85.00 per month. Tomlinson then suggested that DeCostro drive by the house. Subsequently Strader came on the scene, asked about Riverside and was given substantially similar information. Strader also asked about other available housing, but no reference was made to the California Avenue property.
This was the evidence presented to the Commission three member panel after a complaint was filed by it averring that Riverside*fn3 and Appellant violated Section 5(h)(1) of the Act and an Answer thereto denying the allegation was filed by Appellant. On March 6, 1973, the Commission entered its Final Order finding that Appellant had committed a discriminatory act in violation of Section 5(h)(1) of the Act in that it had failed to inform Strader of the availability of the California Avenue property and it therein ordered Appellant
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 230]
to take certain remedial steps designed to eliminate ...