Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Scranton School District
507 A.2d 369
Pa.
1986
Check Treatment

*1 GRANTED, No. 52 E.D. Appeal for Allowance Petition Docket 1985. Appeal

507 A.2d 369 FLUEHR, Jr., etc., Petitioners, John F. PAOLINO, etc., D.O., Respondents.

Richard G. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court April 1986. GRANTED, No. 50 E.D. Appeal

Petition Allowance Docket 1986. Appeal

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION, Appellant, HUMAN RELATIONS DISTRICT, Appellee. SCRANTON SCHOOL Supreme Court

Argued Jan. 1986.

Decided *2 Bell, G. Thompson Counsel, Asst. Gen. Harrisburg, for appellant. Abrahamson, Sol., Scranton,

Edwin for appellee. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and JJ. THE

OPINION OF COURT HUTCHINSON, Justice.

The Human Pennsylvania (“Com- mission”), asserting jurisdiction we under 42 have Pa.C.S. 723(a), filed this an appeal has direct from order of denying Commonwealth Court In enforcement. the Commission issued an order against School District Mrs. Angeline Scranton after Mackarey, employee, alleged an that School Scranton Dis- trict had discriminated her in the course of her The employment. School District did not appeal order. alleging to the Commission later returned Mackarey Mrs. order. the Commission’s District violated the School enforcement of its filed a then The Commission court, holding That after order in Commonwealth The petition. Commission hearings, denied the evidentiary to our Court. appeal its notice of there is a the issue of whether addressed We or- from Commonwealth to this Court direct Depart- in Pennsylvania proceedings ders 423, 469 A.2d 1012 ment case, plurality not. In that (1983), there is and held Hu- opinion Pennsylvania of our disapproved expressly Philadel- District Commission School man Relations opinion), (plurality A.2d 1238 phia, cases. right in enforcement allowed an which reasoning from the follows necessarily This *3 a direct 723(a) does not allow 42 Pa.C.S. § in filed petitions enforcement entered on from orders There, enforcement the petition Commonwealth Aging the of Department Lindberg Mr. was by reinstate- a Civil Service for violation of State on had affirmed Court Commonwealth ment order which seeking is Here, the Human appeal. by never reviewed its order which was enforcement of final when the merits became on but Court Commonwealth is immaterial. This distinction appeal. did not appellee ap- this direct quash we must Thus, following Lindberg, are petitions enforcement regard to whether peal. Without 42 Pa. original jurisdiction, Court’s within Commonwealth com- “originally matters 761, do not involve they C.S. § 723(a). 42 Pa.C.S. required by as in that court menced” § a for allowance petition filed as papers the Treating is 1102, 724(b), petition Pa.R.A.P. the 42 Pa.C.S. appeal, denied. denied. for allowance

Appeal quashed; JJ., in the result. concurs dissenting opin- ZAPPALA, JJ., file a and McDERMOTT ion.

250

McDERMOTT, Justice, dissenting.

In the case relied upon by a majority, plurality this quashed Court a party’s appeal from an enforcement order by entered the Commonwealth Court. See Pennsylvania Department 503 Lindberg, 469 A.2d (1983). I concurred the result on the basis that the enforcement order there at issue was merely to ancillary the Commonwealth Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Con- curring Opinion, McDermott, J., Id., 503 Pa. at A.2d at 1019.

Here, however, the Commonwealth Court never ap- had pellate jurisdiction. Thus, the decision is not directly point. on Since proceeding this case, by was necessity, originally commenced the Com- I monwealth Court dissent from the decision quash to appeal.

ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting.

I dissent from the Court’s decision quash to the appeal, treat the matter as a appeal, allowance of deny allocatur. See Pennsylvania Department Aging v. 423, 436, 469 A.2d (Concurring Roberts, C.J., Opinion of joined by Zappala, J.). As to the merits of the appeal, believing the Common- wealth properly decided presented, the issue I would affirm the Order of that court. *4 Petitioner,

COMMONWEALTH of WEIBEL, Respondent. Aleko Supreme Court of