G. Bundy v. City of Philadelphia CSC
G. Bundy v. City of Philadelphia CSC - 436 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 9, 2017Background
- Gregory Bundy, a Streets Department supervisor with "take-home" city vehicle privileges, struck and killed a pedestrian while driving a City vehicle after clocking out; police transported him to headquarters for possible chemical testing.
- Bundy initially agreed to testing at the scene but, once at the Police Detention Unit (PDU), refused to submit to a blood/breath test; the City treated refusal as an admission of being under the influence and a Policy violation.
- The Streets Department charged Bundy with refusal to test (violating the City Drug & Alcohol Policy), insubordination, and unauthorized use of a City vehicle; Commissioner dismissed Bundy after a departmental hearing.
- Bundy appealed to the Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, which credited departmental and police witnesses over Bundy, found the Policy applicable to employees with take-home vehicles, concluded Bundy refused testing, and upheld dismissal for just cause (including insubordination).
- The trial court affirmed the Commission. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court Bundy argued (1) the Commission ignored the Policy’s plain language (Policy applies only to on-duty accidents), (2) the Policy does not govern off-duty conduct, and (3) there was no nexus between his refusal to test and fitness for his supervisory duties. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City Drug & Alcohol Policy applies when an employee with "take-home" privileges has an accident after clocking out | Bundy: Policy unambiguously applies only to accidents that occur while "on duty," and he was off-duty when the accident occurred | City: Policy covers operation of City-owned vehicles and should encompass commuting by employees with take-home privileges; strict reading would render Policy ineffective | Held: Policy applies to City-owned vehicle operation by employees with take-home privileges; Commission’s application affirmed (Court reaches same result by interpreting Policy as a whole, not by "spirit and intent") |
| Whether the Commission improperly relied on the Policy’s "spirit and intent" instead of plain language | Bundy: Commission violated contract/statutory interpretation principles by ignoring clear, unambiguous text | City: Policy provisions and overall context show employees operating City vehicles are covered even off the clock; refusal to test is treated as positive | Held: Even without relying on "spirit and intent," the Policy read as a whole governs operation of City vehicles and Bundy violated it |
| Whether dismissal for refusing a voluntary police-administered test (off-duty) required a written rule or proof the conduct affected job fitness | Bundy: Non‑sensitive employee; off-duty conduct requires a written work rule or proof the conduct relates to job duties | City: The Policy is a written standard applicable to employees operating City vehicles; refusal and insubordination demonstrate poor judgment and affect supervisory responsibilities | Held: Policy is a written rule applicable here; refusal and insubordination constituted misconduct that touched on fitness for duty—just cause for dismissal |
| Whether there was a sufficient nexus between refusal to test and Bundy’s ability to perform his job | Bundy: No evidence showing refusal impaired his competency or related to job performance | City: Refusal to follow testing directive and to supervise/use City property safely undermines confidence in his ability as a supervisor | Held: Court found a rational nexus—refusal and insubordination eroded confidence in Bundy’s fitness to supervise and safely use City vehicles; dismissal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of Phila., 820 A.2d 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (just cause standard and deference to department discretion)
- Johnson v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 967 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (whether conduct constitutes just cause is a legal question; scope of review)
- Benvignati v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 527 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (just cause must relate to inefficiency, delinquency, or misconduct)
- Perry v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 38 A.3d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility determinations)
- Owens v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 556 A.3d 967 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (off-duty misconduct requires proof a standard applies to civilian personnel; termination not justified when no standard shown)
- Poles v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 573 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (misconduct must correlate to professional competency)
- Woods v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 912 A.2d 803 (Pa. 2006) (off-duty arrest alone may be insufficient to show just cause absent nexus to job performance)
- Carter v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 895 A.2d 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (factors for assessing off-duty conduct include job nature, lack-of-judgment concerns, and safety)
- Gonzales v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 408 A.2d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (failure to follow supervisor’s instructions may constitute just cause)
- Walsh v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 959 A.2d 485 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (off-duty conduct may justify discipline when directly related to job duties)
- Tech v. Wattsburg Area Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 373 A.2d 1165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (off-duty conduct affecting safe performance can justify dismissal)