In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS
COMMISSION CONCERNING
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT
BY MS. LUE EDNA MORGAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
39 F.C.C.2d 77
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 72-1172
DECEMBER 20, 1972
OPINION:
[*77] Mr. HOMER C.
FLOYD, Executive Director, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office,
Human Relations Commission, Post Office Box 3154, Harrisburg, Pa. 17105
DEAR MR. FLOYD: This is in reference
to your letters dated May 15, July 27 and August 7, 1972, concerning Stations
KQV, WDVE-FM, WEDO, WAMO-AM-FM, WJAS-AM-FM, WTAE-TV, KDKA-AM-FM-TV, WIIC-TV,
WQED-TV and WQEX-TV, all of which are located in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
area.
Your letters pertain to a complaint
of employment discrimination filed against each of the above-noted stations by
Ms. Lue Edna Morgan, also known as and doing business as Etta Moro
Morgan. Ms. Morgan Charges each of the stations with discriminating
against her in their hiring practices for such positions as host, producer,
announcer and news reporter. Ms. Morgan also charges the stations with
otherwise maintaining limited employment opportunities for blacks, women and
women age forty and over.
Pursuant to your request the
Commission's staff has deferred final action on the renewal applications for
the above-noted stations since August 1, 1972. However, based upon our
review of the information available, the Commission is of the opinion that it
should not continue to defer action on the basis of Ms. Morgan's
complaint. As we stated in our 1969 Report and Order, 18 FCC 2d 240,
wherein we adopted rules pertaining to non-discrimination in broadcast
employment, not every complaint of an isolated action, even if substantial,
will warrant deferring action on a renewal application. It has,
therefore, been the Commission's practice not to defer action on renewal
applications on the basis of a discrimination complaint being investigated by
another federal, state, or local agency. Rather, in such cases, the
Commission will defer action to the appropriate federal, state, or local agency
and, if necessary, take action after that agency has made its final
determination.
We would appreciate being notified
of any determinations which are made and any action which is taken by the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in connection with your current
investigations.
[*78] Commissioner
Johnson dissenting and issuing a statement, Commissioner Hooks dissenting.
BY
DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
DISSENT:
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
Today the Federal Communications
Commission precludes a state's civil rights commission from filling the void
which we euphemistically describe as our "equal employment opportunities
program."
Since August 1, 1972, this
Commission has deferred action on the renewal applications of numerous
broadcast stations in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area. That action was
requested by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), which
organization was, and still is, investigating complaints of employment
discrimination filed against these stations.
In theory, the FCC has its own
procedures for ensuring that our licensees do not engage in discriminatory
employment practices. See Nondiscrimination Employment Practices of
Broadcast Licensees, 13 FCC 2d 766 (1968); 18 FCC 2d 240 (1969); 23 FCC 2d 430
(1970); Pennsylvania and Delaware Renewals, 36 FCC 2d 515 (1972). However, as I
have remarked on prior occasions, see Pennsylvania and Delaware Renewals --
Equal Employment Opportunity Inquiries, FCC
2d (1972), our efforts in this area are, by and large,
laughable.
The PHRC has, in essence, offered to
do at least part of our job for us. Since the majority is not willing to determine
for itself whether its licensees in the Pittsburgh area have engaged in
discriminatory employment practices, see, e.g., Pennsylvania and Delaware
Renewals -- Equal Employment Opportunity Inquiries, supra, the PHRC has
determined to make that effort and, thus, to fill the void which we created.
The majority's reaction to the state
agency's gesture is to renew each of the contested licenses. The state
has deemed the complaints made against these stations serious enough to warrant
both an investigation and a request to this Commission for deferral. The
majority, however, literally ignores the state's judgment and pays no heed to
traditional notions of comity. It is as if this Commission had renewed
several licenses in the face of pending and unresolved petitions to deny those
license renewals based on grounds of discriminatory employment practices.
At best, the majority has exhibited
considerable disrespect for an important agency of the Pennsylvania state
government. At worst, the majority has confirmed once again that it is
simply not terribly troubled by the fact that large numbers of our licensees
might well be engaging in discriminatory employment practices.
I dissent.