Johnson, G. v. Lansdale Boro, Aplts.
2016 Pa. LEXIS 2188
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Lansdale police officer George Johnson missed a May 18, 2010 preliminary hearing after receiving a subpoena; the criminal charges were dismissed. He later gave inconsistent explanations (forgot vs. was sick). Chief McDyre placed him on administrative leave and recommended termination after a Loudermill hearing.
- Borough Council terminated Johnson; he appealed to the Lansdale Borough Civil Service Commission, which held hearings and sustained three of four charges (failure to appear; false statements to court and in a letter), but rejected one charge of dishonesty during the internal interview due to lack of a contemporaneous record.
- The Commission denied reinstatement; Johnson appealed to the court of common pleas, which reviewed the Commission’s record without taking new evidence and reinstated Johnson with a 30-day suspension (reversing two false-statement findings).
- Commonwealth Court directed briefing on the applicable standard of review, concluded the Borough Code’s “as the court deems proper” language authorized de novo review by the trial court (relying on Turkelson), and affirmed the trial court’s modification of discipline.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether appeals from borough civil service commissions where no new evidence is taken are governed by the Borough Code (de novo per some precedents) or by the Local Agency Law (narrow/substantial-evidence review), and whether a trial court may modify penalties absent evidence of arbitrariness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Proper standard of review when trial court takes no new evidence on appeal from a borough civil service commission | Borough Code §1191(c) ("as the court deems proper") governs; supports broad/de novo review (Turkelson line). | Local Agency Law §754(b) governs where a full record exists; limits review to constitutional error, legal error, procedural violations, or lack of substantial evidence. | The Court held Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law governs (limited appellate review) where no new evidence is taken; Turkelson line to that extent disapproved. |
| 2) Whether a trial court may modify a municipal penalty on the record absent new evidence | Trial court may exercise broad discretion under Borough Code to revise penalty. | Modification should be cabined: commission and local officials deserve deference; modification not permitted unless penalty is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. | The Court held modification on the record is constrained by the Local Agency Law standard; commissions retain meaningful authority and trial courts must apply deferential review. |
| 3) Whether the Commonwealth Court improperly raised the review-standard issue sua sponte | Issue was not raised below; sua sponte consideration is improper. | Commonwealth Court directed supplemental briefing and parties addressed it; consideration was permissible. | The Court held sua sponte concerns were not implicated because the Commonwealth Court solicited briefing and the parties argued the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turkelson v. Lower Merion Township, 152 A.2d 724 (Pa. 1959) (interpreting "as the court deems proper" language in First Class Township Code as broad trial-court discretion)
- Day v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of Carlisle, 931 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (where trial court takes no new evidence, review is limited to constitutional error, legal error, procedural violations, or lack of substantial evidence)
- Tegzes v. Bristol Twp., 472 A.2d 1386 (Pa. 1984) (applying Local Agency Law’s deferential standard where adjudicatory record is complete)
- Lewis v. Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm’n, 542 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1988) (same limited standard under Local Agency Law)
- Reichenbach v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of Wilkinsburg, 417 A.2d 1292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (applied Turkelson to allow broad trial-court review under Borough Code)