(dissenting).
I dissent. In the past this Court has been willing to adopt a two-part test in construing Section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. § 955(a) (Supp. 1974-1975). Specifically, we have looked for not only evidence of overt discriminatory practices, but also evidence of facially neutral employment practices which have the effect of perpetuating prior discriminating practices. As this Court stated in General Electric Corp. v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 469 Pa. 292, 365 A.2d 649 (filed October 20, 1976):
“Section 5(a) was enacted in part to put an end to those invidious, discriminatory policies and practices which have in the past served to deprive women of equal employment opportunities. To this end the section outlaws such policies and stands as a guarantee that a woman’s qualifications for the position she seeks will be evaluated with neutral objectivity. This statutory imposition of neutral employment requirements does not in itself, however, assure equal opportunities to the victims of past discriminatory practices; such persons still remain shackled by the already suffered deprivations of seniority rights, access to training programs, promotions and the like. Occasionally, a facially neutral employment policy incorporates as a criterion for employment a qualification which a fe*544male has been precluded from attaining by virtue of an abandoned discriminatory policy. In such an instance the impact of the past discriminatory practices is perpetuated and the former victim is deprived of equal employment opportunity just as surely as if she were the current object of an overt discriminatory practice(Emphasis added.)
The majority opinion disregards the above standards and falls into the “trap” set by Beaver Falls, when it concludes that since neither Morrell nor McConahy ever applied for employment as a police officer they have no right to complain about any extension of pre-existing discriminatory hiring policies of the police department. If the City Council of Beaver Falls intended to perpetuate a policy of an all-male police force by creating a “special” meter maid position for “women only,” they have effectively done it in this case. The majority opinion advises the council that if its new “position” is good enough to attract women and to keep them in their place, then so long as the women do not apply for jobs on the police force, the system is protected. In other words, if the discriminatory practices are effective (in preventing women from applying for jobs as police officers) this Court will condone the practice.
It is most unfortunate that the majority refuses to consider whether the practices adopted by Beaver Falls had the effect of “chilling” the rights of female employees to apply for jobs as police officers. It seems to me that if a woman needed and wanted work in Beaver Falls, it would be advantageous for her to follow the “hint” of the Beaver Falls Council in applying for the “female only” jobs, rather than making waves in applying for a job on the police force.
Accordingly, I would vacate the order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate the order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.