Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ANTHONY REED v. MILLER PRINTING EQUIPMENT DIVISION WESTERN GEAR CORPORATION (06/15/83)

decided: June 15, 1983.

ANTHONY REED, APPELLANT
v.
MILLER PRINTING EQUIPMENT DIVISION OF WESTERN GEAR CORPORATION, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Miller Printing Division of Western Gear Corporation v. Anthony Reed, Case No. SA 761 of 1981.

COUNSEL

Charles E. Boyle, Campbell, Sherrard & Burke, P.C., for appellant.

Richard DiSalle, with him Edmund M. Carney and Michael D. Glass, Rose, Schmidt, Dixon & Hasley, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 361]

Before this Court, is an appeal by Anthony Reed (Appellant) from a decision and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County reversing the City of Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations' (Commission) decision that the Miller Printing Equipment Division of Western Gear Corp. (Appellee) had impermissibly discriminated against Appellant in his employment. We affirm.

Appellant, a black male, was hired by Appellee in November of 1973 as a radial drill press operator. In the fall of 1978, Appellant bid successfully, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, for a position as a trainee in Appellee's gear cutting department. After seventeen days of training, however, Appellant was disqualified and returned to his prior job. A subsequent request by Appellant for a ten day extension of his training to become qualified as a gear cutter was denied. In 1979, Appellant filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which referred the matter to the Commission. The essence of Appellant's charge was that because of his

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 362]

    race he was not afforded either the extension in his training period permissible under the collective bargaining agreement nor the one-on-one instruction by an experienced supervisor required in the training program. Hearings were held and, in a decision dated June 10, 1981, the Commission found in favor of Appellant with respect to his charge of discrimination. The Commission ordered Appellee to:

1. Reinstate Appellant to the next available gear cutter trainee position and provide him with suitable one-on-one training, as required by the collective bargaining agreement, in an atmosphere free from discrimination;

2. Afford Appellant an additional fifteen days of training at the completion of his initial training period if requested;

3. Assign Appellant to a machine or assembly operation upon successful completion of his training and provide follow-up assistance in accordance with the terms ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.