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.

EMILY E. DAVIS WINN v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES (06/27/83)

decided: June 27, 1983.

EMILY E. DAVIS WINN, APPELLANT
v.
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Emily E. Davis Winn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., No. SA 5 of 1981.

COUNSEL

Wendell G. Freeland, with him John A. Meyer, Freeland & Krontz, for appellant.

James A. Mollica, Jr., Meyer Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, for appellees.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Concurring Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Macphail

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 368]

Before this Court is the appeal of Emily E. Davis Winn (Winn) from the final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County reversing the decision of the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (Commission). The Commission determined that Winn had been discriminated against on the basis of race and sex by her employer Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) in three separate instances in which Winn had sought promotion. We now reverse the Court of Common Pleas.

Winn is a black female who had been employed by TWA since March of 1967.*fn1 At the time of the 1979 Commission hearings regarding this matter, Winn had had eight years of service with TWA.*fn2 Winn had, in 1974, been promoted to the management position of Quality Controller for TWA in Boston, but this position was eliminated in April of 1975 during a period of economic contraction. Winn was then placed in the non-management position of Reservations Sales Agent in Boston. She relocated to Pittsburgh in July of 1975, retaining her Reservations Sales Agent position. Winn then began to apply for a number of promotions. The denials of promotion to positions in Pittsburgh by TWA on five separate occasions were focused upon by the Commission.*fn3 In brief, these positions were:

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 3691]

) Senior Sales Representative in March, 1976; a position for which Winn was found to be qualified by the Commission, but for which Winn was not even interviewed by TWA. A white male with, as found by the Commission, substantially similar credentials as Ms. Winn was hired for the position.

2) Team Coordinator in April, 1977; seven positions were available and the successful candidates were all white. Winn was found by the Commission to be qualified for the job.

3) Cargo Account Executive in June, 1977; Winn testified that the Regional Manager of the Cargo Department indicated to her that he would not interview Winn for the position as it was not a job for a woman. However, the Commission also determined that Winn did not have the qualifications for the job and that the man ultimately chosen for the position had superior qualifications.

4) Field Training Instructor in February, 1977; Winn was found by the Commission to be qualified for this position, but the Commission also found that the white female chosen for the position had far superior qualifications.

5) Senior Sales Representative in April, 1978; this position was awarded to a white male although Winn was again ...


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.