B. Cauler v. SCSC (PLCB)
5 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Betty Cauler, a probationary Intermittent Liquor Store Clerk at PLCB store #3901, was removed effective May 27, 2015 after two incidents (April 19 and May 14, 2015) for violating work rules (insubordination, discourteous/profane conduct).
- HR Analyst investigated and recommended removal because Cauler was a probationary employee whose conduct violated the Appointing Authority’s Work Rules; removal was affirmed by the Appointing Authority.
- Cauler appealed to the State Civil Service Commission under Section 951(b) (alleging discrimination under Section 905.1), asserting age- and gender-based discrimination and retaliation; a hearing was held where Cauler and several witnesses (including two assistant managers, District Manager, HR Analyst) testified.
- Key factual disputes: whether Cauler refused a direct order (April 19) and whether she used profane language and ordered a manager to remove her register (May 14); Assistant Manager 1 admitted acting “to spite” Cauler but denied any age/gender motive.
- The Commission credited the Appointing Authority’s witnesses (particularly HR Analyst), excluded evidence of unrelated disciplinary action against management (no crimen falsi conviction), and concluded Cauler failed to prove discrimination or retaliation; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cauler established age- or gender-based discrimination in violation of Section 905.1 | Cauler argued she was an older female, qualified for the job, was fired and effectively replaced by a younger male; she also pointed to Assistant Manager 1’s rude/spiteful conduct and HR Analyst/Assistant Manager testimony | Appointing Authority argued removal was for non-discriminatory, work-rule violations of a probationary employee; replacement story was incorrect and managers did not decide removal | Held: Cauler failed to establish a prima facie case; substantial evidence supports Commission’s finding that removal was for work-rule violations, not discrimination |
| Whether the Commission erred in crediting Appointing Authority witnesses and rejecting impeachment evidence (discipline of managers) | Cauler asserted subsequent disciplinary actions against managers showed they were not credible (crimen falsi) | Appointing Authority argued crimen falsi requires a conviction and the disciplinary matters did not constitute admissible impeachment; the Commission is the factfinder on credibility | Held: Commission’s credibility determinations upheld; disciplining of managers without crimen falsi convictions was not admissible impeachment and was irrelevant to Cauler’s removal |
| Whether circumstantial or direct evidence sufficed to shift burden to employer | Cauler claimed circumstantial evidence (age, alleged replacement by younger male, manager comments) and direct evidence (manager’s rude/spiteful statements) supported discrimination | Appointing Authority showed neutral explanation (insubordination/profane conduct); District Manager and HR Analyst testimony explained staffing moves and disciplinary process | Held: Neither circumstantial nor direct evidence proved discriminatory motive; the Appointing Authority provided a non-discriminatory explanation and the Commission reasonably believed it |
| Whether removal was retaliation for complaint about treatment | Cauler said she complained to Assistant Manager 1 and was written up the next day | Appointing Authority noted write-ups were contemporaneous with incidents, Cauler did not officially report discrimination to supervisors or HR, and removal was for work-rule violations | Held: Cauler failed to prove retaliation; no evidence she formally complained such that discipline was retaliatory and Commission’s rejection affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allegheny Hous. Rehab. Corp. v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 532 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1987) (framework for proving discrimination: prima facie case, employer’s non-discriminatory explanation, and weighing credibility under preponderance standard)
- Henderson v. Office of the Budget, 560 A.2d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (applying Allegheny Housing test to Section 905.1 discrimination claims)
- Thompson v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 863 A.2d 180 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Commission is factfinder; credibility and weight of evidence are for the Commission)
- Benjamin v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 332 A.2d 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence where substantial evidence supports Commission findings)
- Cunningham v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 332 A.2d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (probationary employees lack same job security as permanent employees; different discipline is permissible)