Legal Opinion
Driscoll v. Carpenters District Council
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 24, 1990No. 94 W.D. Appeal Docket 1988PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIX, Chief Justice.
The instant appeal presents a question of first impression in this Commonwealth: whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951, et seq. (“PHRA”), is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq. (“NLRA”), 1 from providing a remedy for alleged discriminatory practices in the operation of a labor union hiring hall. The following facts are pertinent to our resolution of this matter.
Appellees, Cecelia Driscoll and William Dailey, were members of the appellant labor organizations. Appellees alleged that by the terms of the labor…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Jordan v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- International Longshoremen Association, Local 1413-1465 v. Massachusetts Commission Against DiscriminationMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.