P. Sisofo v. SCSC (PennDOT)
P. Sisofo v. SCSC (PennDOT) - 1260 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.May 4, 2017Background
- Petitioner Peter Sisofo, an Assistant Highway Maintenance Manager at PennDOT, was suspended without pay for five days (effective Sept. 14, 2015) for "inappropriate behavior and safety violations."
- PennDOT's suspension letter listed only general charges (inappropriate behavior; safety violations; threatening employees) and did not describe the specific incidents underlying those charges.
- Sisofo attended a pre-disciplinary conference (PDC) and the Commission hearing, where PennDOT introduced testimony about several discrete incidents (grievances filed in Oct. 2014) that formed the basis for discipline.
- Sisofo argued the written notice was too general to permit meaningful defense at the PDC or at the Commission hearing; PennDOT relied on the PDC and later hearing participation to satisfy due process.
- The State Civil Service Commission upheld the suspension; Sisofo appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Commission’s order and remanded for a new hearing, directing PennDOT to provide notice stating specific reasons for the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether written notice satisfied due process and 4 Pa. Code § 105.3 requirement for a "clear statement of the reasons" for suspension | Sisofo: notice was too general ("umbrella" charges) and lacked incident descriptions, so he could not prepare a defense | PennDOT: process as a whole (PDC and hearing) and advance notice of witnesses satisfied due process | Held: notice was insufficient; must state specific reasons/identify grounds with greater particularity before hearing |
| Whether participation in PDC and Commission hearing cured defective written notice | Sisofo: participation did not cure lack of adequate advance written notice | PennDOT: PDC and hearing participation satisfied procedural requirements | Held: participation did not cure the defective advance written notice requirement under regulations and precedent |
| Whether failure to follow notice rules automatically voids discipline | Sisofo: relief sought based on insufficient notice | PennDOT: procedural defects do not automatically nullify personnel action | Held: notice requirements are mandatory but failure does not automatically void action; court vacated and remanded for a proper notice and new hearing |
| Scope of review: whether Commission’s factual findings supported action | Sisofo: challenged adequacy of notice and ability to defend; did not press factual sufficiency as primary ground | PennDOT: argued substantial evidence supported findings at hearing | Held: Court did not reach substantive evidentiary sufficiency due to procedural defect in notice; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavis v. Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, Department of Public Welfare, 370 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (notice listing general reasons too vague; remand for more particular notice)
- Bosnjak v. State Civil Service Commission, 781 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (notice sufficient when it identified specific code section and the manner of alleged violations)
- Woods v. State Civil Service Commission, 912 A.2d 803 (Pa. 2006) (adequate notice must at least list and explain charges so employee can prepare a defense)