Frog, Switch & Manufacturing Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEADBETTER.

I must respectfully dissent. I believe the majority has read both Driscoll1 and Bortz2 too broadly in holding that factual findings of one agency (or, here an arbitrator) cannot have preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings before another agency. As the majority explains, Driscoll involved the issue of preemption, not preclusion. The court rejected the preemption claim, holding that “where a plaintiffs claims of discrimination constitute an unfair labor practice, the claimant has the option of proceeding under either Title VII [and therefore also under…