Blake, S. v. State Civil Service Commission, Aplt.
166 A.3d 292
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Scott R. Blake attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point from July 1991 to January 1993, completed basic training and 18 months of academy education, then left before a service obligation accrued and never performed subsequent military service. His DD Form 214 described his separation as honorable.
- Blake applied for Pennsylvania civil service positions in 2014 and claimed a veterans’ preference after passing the required exam; the State Civil Service Commission (CSC) denied the claim, concluding cadet time is not creditable as "time in service."
- Blake argued cadet time qualifies as "active duty" under federal definitions and thus meets Pennsylvania’s definition of "soldier" in 51 Pa.C.S. § 7101. CSC argued West Point cadet time is not the kind of military service the VPA covers.
- The State Civil Service Commission argued, alternatively, that granting Blake the preference would lack a reasonable relation to the purpose of the VPA and be constitutionally infirm; the Commission applied that constitutional analysis instead of resolving statutory questions.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, adopting a federal definition of "active duty" to conclude Blake qualified as a "soldier" under section 7101; this Court granted review and reexamined statutory intent and textual context.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the federal definitions were not controlling, the 2004 amendment to § 7101 targeted reservists/Guard called to active duty, and Blake — who never incurred or performed military service — is not a "soldier" under the VPA and is not entitled to preference.
Issues
| Issue | Blake's Argument | CSC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West Point cadet time qualifies a person as a "soldier" under 51 Pa.C.S. § 7101 | Cadet time is "active duty" under federal definitions and thus satisfies § 7101 | Section 7101 requires actual service in the armed forces; cadet time without a service obligation does not qualify | Court held cadet time does not make Blake a "soldier" under § 7101 |
| Whether federal statutory definitions of "active duty" govern construction of § 7101 | Federal definitions are directly applicable and support Blake's claim | Federal definitions are not "former law" for § 7101 and § 7109 makes the chapter exclusive; federal terms should not be imported | Court held federal definitions are inapplicable; statutory context and Pennsylvania precedent control |
| Whether the 2004 amendment to § 7101 expanded the term "active duty" to cover cadets | Blake: amendment supports broader reading of "active duty" | CSC: amendment targeted reservists/Guard called to active duty and did not change coverage for cadets | Court held amendment intended to cover Guard/Reservists called to active duty, not academy cadets |
| Whether the Commission erred by deciding on constitutional grounds rather than statutory ones | Blake: statutory entitlement exists; constitutional analysis unnecessary | CSC/Commission: constitutional concerns about "reasonable relation" to VPA's purpose supported denial | Court avoided constitutional question and reversed on statutory grounds; constitutional analysis unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Housing Authority of the County of Chester v. State Civil Service Comm’n, 730 A.2d 935 (Pa. 1999) (articulates the "reasonable relation" test for veterans' preference classifications)
- Herskovitz v. State Civil Service Comm’n, 534 A.2d 160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (rejects importing federal definitions to interpret Pennsylvania veterans' preference and discusses relationship of state code to federal standards)
- Sicuro v. City of Pittsburgh, 684 A.2d 232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (refuses to extend preference to individuals who completed training but had not completed their initial service commitment)
- Commonwealth v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., 8 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2010) (courts should avoid constitutional questions when cases can be decided on non-constitutional grounds)
- Brickhouse v. Spring-Ford Area Sch. Dist., 656 A.2d 483 (Pa. 1995) (discusses purposes of veterans' preference statutes and societal recognition of veterans' service)
- Commonwealth v. Albert, 758 A.2d 1149 (Pa. 2000) (statutory classifications must bear a reasonable relationship to legislative objectives)