2012 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 7
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa2012Background
- Petition seeking interim suspension without pay of Justice Joan Orie Melvin under Article V, §18(d)(2) after felony charges were filed.
- Penalties sought: interim suspension without pay; medical benefits to continue.
- Pre-suspension record includes grand jury presentment recommending nine charges and a two-day preliminary hearing.
- Court had previously suspended Respondent with pay on May 22, 2012; interim order without pay is now requested.
- Court must decide whether interim suspension without pay is constitutionally and lawfully warranted before a full hearing on sanctions.
- Court analyzes due process and totality-of-circumstances framework under Larsen/Jaffe for interim suspensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority for interim suspension without pay | Board seeks interim relief under Art. V, §18(d)(2). | Respondent contests expansion beyond ordinary interim power; pay status questioned. | Interim suspension without pay authorized under §18(d)(2). |
| Due process applicability and framework | Constitution permits expedited interim action with minimal pre-hearing process. | Traditional due process rights from §18(b)(5) apply only to final sanctions, not interim orders. | Due process in interim suspension satisfies both U.S. and Pa. constitutions; not required to mirror §18(b)(5) protections. |
| Totality of circumstances test for interim suspension | Totality supports suspension without pay given charge basis and staff involvement. | Suspension with pay preferred as a matter of policy and precedent. | Totality of circumstances warrants interim suspension without pay. |
| Relation to existing May 22, 2012 order | Interim order without pay complements current suspension. | May 22 order with pay should stand unless changed. | Maintains discretion to alter pay status via interim order; current ruling supersedes prior with-pay status. |
| Adequacy of evidence supporting grounds for suspension | Evidence shows extensive political activity by Respondent’s staff under her direction. | Characterizes charges as weak and asserts lack of knowledge by Respondent. | Evidence supports the court’s action; totality shows reasonable grounds for suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pretermination process; limited hearing suffices before termination)
- Gilbert v. Homar, Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1997) (pre-suspension due process balancing; not always required pre-suspension hearing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor balancing test for due process)
- In re Larsen, 655 A.2d 239 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1994) (totality-of-circumstances framework for interim suspensions)
- In re Jaffe, 814 A.2d 308 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2003) (discusses presumption of innocence in interim proceedings and burden to show necessity)
- Gilbert v. Homar (Gilbert), Gilbert v. Homar, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996) (federal due process considerations guiding state interim action; cited for approach in Pa.)
- In re Smith, 712 A.2d 849 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998) (recognizes Board’s burden to show totality of circumstances justify interim relief)