Chambliss v. City of Philadelphia, AFL-CIO

• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Writing for the Court: Before COLINS and PALLADINO, JJ., and KALISH; PALLADINO; COLINS; KALISH
• Citation: 535 A.2d 291,112 Pa.Cmwlth. 290
• Parties: Lloyd V. CHAMBLISS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, District Council 47,, and Kirschner, Willig, Weinberg & Dempsey. Appeal of CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
• Decision Date: 31 December 1987
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO

Page 291

535 A.2d 291 112 Pa.Cmwlth. 290 Lloyd V. CHAMBLISS
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, District Council 47, AFL-CIO,
and Kirschner, Willig, Weinberg & Dempsey.
Appeal of CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued Sept. 18, 1987.
Decided Dec. 31, 1987.

[112 Pa.Cmwlth. 291] Jesse Milan, Jr., Chief Asst. City Solicitor, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert A. Davitch, Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, Philadelphia, for Lloyd V. Chambliss.

Aaron J. Beyer, Meltzer & Schiffrin, and Aaron Jay Beyer, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, for American Federation of State County, Municipal Employees.

Stephanie Resnick, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before COLINS and PALLADINO, JJ., and KALISH, Senior Judge.

PALLADINO, Judge.

The City of Philadelphia (City) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) which granted a preliminary injunction to Lloyd V. Chambliss and ordered him reinstated [112 Pa.Cmwlth. 292] to his former employment with the City. ¹ For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. ²

In 1971, Chambliss was hired as an Area Youth Worker with the City's Department of Welfare. On January 8, 1979, Chambliss was injured in a work-related accident for which he was placed on disability leave. As a result of emotional difficulties associated with his injuries and absence from work, Chambliss began psychiatric treatment with Dr. Clancy D. McKenzie in May of 1980, such treatment continuing until the end of 1982.

On August 4, 1980, Chambliss returned to work. However, approximately one week later, Chambliss failed to appear for work, and the City subsequently separated him from employment under the Philadelphia Civil Service Regulations for job abandonment.

Following his separation, Chambliss filed a grievance against the City under the terms of the relevant Collective Bargaining

Page 292

Agreement alleging harassment and related charges. The controversy went to binding arbitration, and hearings were held on April 12, 1983 and May 2, 1983. At the hearings, Dr. McKenzie testified that Chambliss had suffered severe depression as a result of his physical injuries but that this disorder finally subsided towards the end of 1982.

The arbitrator subsequently ruled in favor of Chambliss and ordered the City to reinstate him to his position as of July 28, 1983. The City did not appeal the arbitrator's award. In anticipation of his return to work, [112 Pa.Cmwlth. 293] Chambliss reported to the City's medical dispensary for a medical examination pursuant to Philadelphia Civil Service Regulation 9.1411. ³ At the examination, the treating physician requested Chambliss to release all of Dr. McKenzie's psychiatric records pertaining to his treatment of Chambliss. Chambliss initially executed a release of records. However, he later revoked the release following conversations with Dr. McKenzie, stating that the file contained some personal and confidential material. When Dr. McKenzie failed to release Chambliss' file, the City refused to reinstate him to his former position.

On August 27, 1985 Chambliss filed a complaint in civil action with the trial court seeking reinstatement, back pay and damages based upon both his employment contract with the City and the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ⁴ On August 13, 1986, Chambliss filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and writ of mandamus against the City, seeking immediate reinstatement pending the conclusion of his principal litigation. The trial court granted Chambliss' motion ⁵ on October 12, 1987, and the City has appealed this order to this [112 Pa.Cmwlth. 294] court. Before us ⁶ at this time, therefore, is the limited issue of whether the trial court properly granted Chambliss' preliminary injunction for reinstatement.

In Willman v. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269, 479 A.2d 452, 455 (1984) (quoting Zebra v. Pittsburgh School District, 449 Pa. 432, 437, 296 A.2d 748, 750 (1972)), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:

In order to sustain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff's right to relief must be clear, the need for relief must be immediate, and the injury must be irreparable if the injunction is not granted.

With regard to the irreparable harm element of the test, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated:

'The key word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.'

Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90, 94...