M.J. Slatky v. SCSC (L&I), 1965 C.D. 2015

Michael J. Slatky (Petitioner) appealed to the State Civil Service Commission claiming he was improperly excluded from a second-round interview and thus not appointed to an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Assistant Administrator/Program Manager position.
First-round interviews occurred Aug–Sept 2013; Petitioner learned who was appointed in December 2013 but did not file an appeal then.
Petitioner alleges "technical discrimination" because his averaged first-round scores were equal to or higher than one or both candidates who advanced; he contends the basis for that claim was not discoverable until Aug 11, 2015 when he saw interviewers’ notes and scoring.
Petitioner filed his Appeal Request Form with the Commission on Aug 27, 2015 (about 20 months after he learned identity of selectee and ~16 days after he inspected the notes).
The Commission dismissed the appeal as untimely under the 20-day filing rule (4 Pa. Code § 105.12(a)(3)). On reconsideration the Commission found that discovery of interview notes did not show any violation because interviews are not required by Commission rules.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Petitioner’s appeal untimely because he knew the identity of the appointee in December 2013 and thus could have compared qualifications then; viewing interview notes later did not reveal a violation of the Act or rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 20‑day appeal period begin under the Civil Service Act (discovery rule application)?	Slatky: the 20‑day period should run from Aug 11, 2015—the date he discovered the interviewers’ scoring that revealed the discriminatory basis.	Commission/Department: the period began when Slatky discovered his non‑selection and the identity of the selectee (Dec 2013); discovery rule does not save a twenty‑month delay.	Held: 20‑day period began when Petitioner knew he was not selected and who was selected (Dec 2013); appeal filed Aug 2015 was untimely.
Whether disclosure of interview scoring on Aug 11, 2015 created a new, timely basis for a technical discrimination claim (i.e., showed a violation of the Act or Commission rules)?	Slatky: seeing scoring revealed a procedural impropriety (technical discrimination) that he could not have known earlier.	Commission/Department: Petitioner did not identify any Act provision or rule violated by the scoring; Commission rules do not require interviews or that scoring determine advancement.	Held: Viewing the notes did not demonstrate a violation of the Act or rules and thus did not reset the 20‑day period.

Reck v. State Civil Service Commission, 992 A.2d 977 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (distinguishes traditional vs. technical discrimination under the Civil Service Act)
Pronko v. Department of Revenue, 539 A.2d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (discusses discrimination categories under the Act)
Price v. Luzerne/Wyoming Counties Area Agency on Aging, 672 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (describes proof standards for technical discrimination)
Butler v. State Civil Service Commission, 426 A.2d 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (applies discovery rule to toll the 20‑day appeal period where identity of the selectee was necessary to show discrimination)
Seddon v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 609 A.2d 619 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (recognizes discovery rule application under Section 951(b))
Department of Education, Scranton State School for the Deaf v. Maskaly, 554 A.2d 146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (explains 20‑day appeal period is mandatory)
Ellis v. Department of Transportation, 381 A.2d 1325 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (confirms strict time limitation for appeals under the Act)
Pennsylvania Game Com. v. State Civil Service Commission (Toth), 747 A.2d 887 (Pa. 2000) (sets standard of review for Commission decisions)