Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, District Council 33, Local 934
52 A.3d 1117
Pa.2012Background
- Public Employee Relations Act arbitration governed termination for just cause under a PHA-CBA between AFSCME District Council 33 Local 934 and the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
- Mitchell, a PHA warehouseman, was accused of sexually harassing co-worker Broadnax; PHA conducted an internal investigation and terminated him.
- Grievance and arbitration followed; arbitrator found Broadnax credible, Mitchell not credible, and that Mitchell had numerous prohibited acts but concluded there was no just cause to terminate and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
- PHA sought to vacate the award; trial court denied, Commonwealth Court vacated, holding the award conflicted with public policy grounded in anti-harassment protections.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider the public policy exception to the essence test; the majority affirmed the Commonwealth Court, vacating the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the arbitrator’s award violate a clearly established public policy against sexual harassment? | Appellant argues no public policy requires termination or sanctions beyond a warning. | PHA argues public policy, drawn from Title VII and PHRA, requires sanctions for proven harassment and prohibits reinstatement without sanction. | Yes; award violates public policy and must be vacated. |
| Was the public policy exception to the essence test properly applied to vacate the award? | Appellant contends deference to arbitrators and narrow public policy exception should not void the award. | PHA contends the exception properly aligns with strong anti-harassment policies and PERA's framework. | Yes; the exception was properly applied to vacate the award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 v. Westmoreland Intermed. Unit No. 7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Personnel Ass’n, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (adopted public policy exception to essence test; narrow/defined public policy standard)
- Cheyney University v. State System of Higher Education, 560 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1999) (essence test standard for PERA arbitration review)
- Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 776, 969 F.2d 1436 (3d Cir. 1992) (well-defined public policy against sexual harassment; voids award reinstating harasser without punishment)
- Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (arbitration awards not to undermine public policy; limited review)
- Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, District 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000) (contextual public policy review in specialized regulatory fields)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 (1983) (seniority/contract-based public policy considerations in arbitration)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile environment harassment is actionable under Title VII)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (reinstatement in certain contexts upheld if not plainly contrary to public policy)
- Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (PHRA applicability and public policy against sex discrimination in employment)
- Way Bakery v. Truck Drivers Local No. 164, 363 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2004) (considerations of discipline for harassment; varied circuit approaches)