Perry v. State Civil Service Commission
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 631
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Perry, a long-time L&I employee, served as WCJ Manager in the Southeast District and supervised about 68 employees.
- L&I adopted a Weapons Policy prohibiting possession of weapons on its property; Perry held a carry license and occasionally kept a firearm in his car or brought it into his office.
- In October 2009 Perry admitted at a fact-finding that he showed a gun to a subordinate during travel and had a gun in his vehicle on Commonwealth property; he denied bringing it into the Arch Street workplace.
- Perry was suspended after the fact-finding meeting (Nov. 17, 2009); in January 2010 he was formally removed, based on violations of the weapons policy and workplace-violence directive.
- Perry challenged the pre-termination due process, the sufficiency of just cause for removal, and discrimination claims; the Commission upheld the removal, and the trial court (Commonwealth) affirmed on judicial review.
- The court reviewed the Commission’s findings for substantial evidence and legal compliance, affirming removal based on Perry’s weapon-policy violations and supervisory responsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Loudermill pre-termination process satisfied? | Perry claims the ambush meeting lacked specific charges and supporting evidence. | L&I provided notice of charges, general evidence, and an opportunity to respond; notice at the meeting sufficed under Loudermill. | Yes; pre-termination due process satisfied. |
| Did L&I prove just cause for removal? | One inadvertent workplace incident over a 30-year tenure cannot justify removal. | Perry violated clear weapons policies; evidence showed intentional or knowingly prohibited conduct rendering him unfit for the role. | Yes; there was just cause for removal. |
| Was Perry discriminated against based on hostility or non-merit factors? | Unfavorable treatment and hostile conduct tied to Perry’s testimony in another matter show discrimination. | Removal was based on policy violations, not discrimination; the employer lacked discriminatory motive proof. | No; discrimination claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1985) (pretermination due process allows compressed hearing with opportunity to respond)
- Gniotek v. City of Philadelphia, 808 F.2d 241 (3d Cir. 1986) (notice at predeprivation hearing may suffice; timing depends on circumstances)
- Antonini v. W. Beaver Area Sch. Dist., 874 A.2d 679 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (distinguishes proper pretermination process; need meaningful notice)
- Wei v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 961 A.2d 254 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (just cause involves merit-related, rational reasoning for removal)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 573 Pa. 594 (Pa. 2003) (unemployment context; distinguishes willful misconduct from just cause; not controlling here)
- Bolden v. Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 869 A.2d 1134 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (inadvertent weapon possession may violate policy; still may justify removal for neglect of duty)
- Sacks v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 502 Pa. 201 (Pa. 1983) (calculus of injury in First Amendment government-employee cases; distinguished here)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, — (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (recognizes limits on Second Amendment rights; government buildings permissible)