Opinion
No. 87-26
Decided November 10, 1987.
Civil Rights Commission — Appeal in court — Order upheld, when — Findings of commission supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record — R.C. 4112.06(E).
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County.
Appellant, Samuel R. Prather ("Prather"), was employed by the Dayton Power Light Company ("appellee"). Prather commenced working for appellee on March 19, 1970. During his course of service with appellee, Prather was promoted until he reached the highest position in his rank, First Class Technician. The only discipline received by Prather during his over twelve years of service with appellee was a one-day suspension. Prather is black.
All of the persons with whom Prather worked, including his immediate supervisor, his foreman, the unit manager and the station manager are all white. A group of these employees, including Prather, were, on Sunday, September 12, 1982, engaged in "horseplay" which resulted in the damaging of property of appellee. Prather was directly involved in and responsible for some of the damage that occurred. For causing damage, Prather was discharged effective September 13, 1982.
On February 28, 1983, Prather filed a charge with appellant Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("commission") alleging that appellee had committed an act of discrimination. Prather contended he was discharged because of his race. After an investigation and hearing, the commission concluded that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the charge. Appellee was found to have unlawfully discharged Prather because of his race.
Appellee appealed the commission's order to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. The trial court affirmed the commission's determination, finding that it was supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence of record. Upon appeal, the court of appeals reversed the order of the trial court on the basis that there was no reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that appellee had intentionally discriminated against Prather. Both Prather and the commission appealed to this court.
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Freund, Freeze Arnold, Neil F. Freund and Jane M. Lynch, for appellee.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Jeffrey B. Rubenstein, for appellant Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
Kenneth W. Scott and Edward S. Monohan, for appellant Prather.
R.C. 4112.06(E) provides that "[t]he findings of the commission as to the facts shall be conclusive if supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record * * *." See, also, Plumbers Steamfitters Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 20 O.O. 3d 200, 421 N.E.2d 128, paragraph two of the syllabus. Where such evidence exists, it is improper for a court to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency.
This court has conducted a thorough review of the record. We find that a number of like incidents of horseplay as that involved in this case, including damage of company property, had previously occurred. All of the participants in those activities were white and none had ever been discharged for participating in the events. Some of the incidents were far more serious than that with which Prather was charged.
Evidence was also presented that some of those persons, all white, who were involved in the supervisory and termination "chain of command" of Prather, had previously admitted, in some cases, that they were racists and, by uncontroverted testimony, were shown to have exhibited racist behavior. It would serve no purpose here to relate all the particulars of those incidents, including behavior and language directed toward Prather that are contained in this record.
Suffice it to say that it is the judgment of this court that the record does, in fact, contain reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supporting the findings and orders of the commission and the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the orders of the commission and the court of common pleas are reinstated.
Judgment reversed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
I concur completely with today's decision. I write separately to add an observation of my own.
As I have stated before, utility companies are quasi-public corporations and possess the characteristics of monopolies. The public interest increases with a monopoly for, as such, its actions are not regulated by the strictures of the marketplace. Central State University v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 175, 179-180, 4 O.O. 3d 373, 375, 364 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Locher, J., dissenting). This is a point I have often stressed in rate cases before this court. I also believe it is a salient point to be made in considering cases such as the one at bar.
As quasi-public corporations, utility companies should be at the forefront in maintaining non-discriminatory policies and fostering equal opportunity in the workplace. The facts of this case revealing such discrimination and needless childish actions are, in a word, appalling.