Here is the opinion in Neshaminy School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission:
An utterly strange excerpt:
There can be no dispute that the Act is intended to be used to eliminate unlawful discriminatory practices, as defined by Section 5(i)(1), within Pennsylvania. The Commission’s authority is defined by the Act, and the Act’s plain language may not be ignored in an effort, however laudable, to pursue its spirit. Reviewing the Act’s plain language, the record, and the Commission’s Final Opinion and Order, we agree with the Commission that it had jurisdiction over the District and that the claims raised were not barred by the statute of limitations. The Commission’s holding that the District violated Section 5(i)(1) based on the educational harm caused to non-Native American students was predicated on “[t]he non-Native American student bystanders [being] impacted by the District’s discrimination against Native Americans ….” (Final Op. and Order at 48 (emphasis added).) However, the Commission dismissed both claims alleging that the District committed an unlawful discriminatory practice causing harm to Native American students, on the basis that such harm was either speculative or not supported by the evidence. That dismissal was not appealed and is not before us. Because the Commission dismissed the claims of discrimination against Native American students, the predicate under Section 5(i)(1) to sustain the claim for harm to non-Native American students was not there. Therefore, the determination is not supported by the Act’s plain language. Accordingly, the Commission’s Order is reversed.
