Philadelphia County Bd. of Assistance, Dept. of Public Welfare v. Vinson
| Decision Date | 19 July 1983 |
| Parties | PHILADELPHIA COUNTY BOARD OF ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Charles VINSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Carl Vaccaro, Philadelphia, for petitioner.
Terry L. Fromson, Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia, for respondent.
Before CRUMLISH, President Judge, and WILLIAMS and BARBIERI, JJ.
The Philadelphia County Board of Assistance (Board) appeals here from an adjudication of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) ordering the reinstatement of Charles Vinson to his position as an Income Maintenance Worker I, probationary status. We reverse.
On January 30, 1981, the Board dismissed Mr. Vinson from his position as an Income Maintenance Worker I, probationary status, because of convictions he had received on charges of robbery and conspiracy in 1979. Although the Board had been aware of Mr. Vinson's convictions when it hired him in August of 1980, the Board apparently felt that it had to offer Mr. Vinson the position since the Commission had rejected a Board request to have Mr. Vinson's name removed from the Commission's eligibility list for this position. After receiving additional legal advice, however, the Board concluded that it could dismiss Mr. Vinson from his position, and did so. In response to this dismissal Mr. Vinson requested, and received, a hearing on this matter before the Commission. After evaluating the evidence adduced at this hearing, the Commission issued an adjudication in which it made the following statement:
[T]he relationship between appellant's conviction and his job responsibilities is tenuous. The acts underlying appellant's conviction occurred off-duty and are not likely to be duplicated on the job. Moreover, appellant occupied an entry level position with the appointing authority under close supervision, rather than a sensitive position with independent responsibilities.
The Commission then concluded that Mr. Vinson's appeal had to be sustained since "[t]he appointing authority discriminated against appellant by its use of a non-merit factor (i.e., the prior criminal conviction) as the basis for removal." The present appeal followed.
"Our review of adjudications of the Civil Service Commission is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or necessary findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence." Brown v. Department of Transportation, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 461, 463, 383 A.2d 978, 979 (1978).
Here, the Board asserts (1) that there is not substantial evidence of record to support the Commission's findings that Mr. Vinson was under close supervision and didn't occupy a sensitive position, and (2) that the Commission erred as a matter of law by concluding that Mr. Vinson's dismissal was based upon discriminatory non-merit criteria. We agree.
The Commission concluded that Mr. Vinson's dismissal had been in violation of the mandate of Section 905.1 of the Civil Service Act (Act), Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, added by Section 25 of the Act of August 27, 1963, P.L. 1257, 71 P.S. § 741.905a which reads as follows:
No officer or employe of the Commonwealth shall discriminate against any person in recruitment, examination, appointment, training, promotion, retention or any other personnel action with respect to the classified service because of political or religious opinions or affiliations because of labor union affiliations or because of race, national origin or other non-merit factor. (Emphasis added.)
We have recognized that under the provisions of Section 905.1
any 'personnel action' carried out by the Commonwealth is to be scrutinized in the light of ... merit criteria, as has the party failed to properly execute his duties, or has he done an act which hampers or frustrates the execution of same. The criteria must be job-related and in some rational and logical manner touch upon competency and ability.
Lusane v. State Civil Service Commission, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 642, 646, 291 A.2d 808, 811 (1972) (quoting Corder v. State Civil Service Commission, 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 462, 467, 279 A.2d 368, 371 (1971)). This Court has also recognized that "if activities outside of the job reflect upon the employe's ability to perform his job, they can provide a basis either for removal or a lesser punishment." Baron v. State Civil Service Commission, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 6, 10, 301 A.2d 427, 429 (1973). Such activities may, of course, encompass off-the-job criminal conduct. See, e.g., Department of Justice, Bureau of Corrections v. Grant, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 582, 350 A.2d 878 (1976) (); Cotter v. State Civil Service Commission, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 49, 318 A.2d 390 (1974) (); Lusane (A Child Care Aide I employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare was properly dismissed after being arrested on charges of assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, wantonly pointing a deadly weapon and...
To continue reading
Request your trial