Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARVEN M. BRENNER v. C. HERSCHEL JONES (03/03/71)

decided: March 3, 1971.

MARVEN M. BRENNER
v.
C. HERSCHEL JONES, CHAIRMAN, MARY DILWORTH BARNES AND JOHN A. MCCARTHY, MEMBERS OF THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA



Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County from the adjudication of the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission sustaining the demotion of appellant from his position as Real Estate Specialist IV. Appeal transferred September 1, 1970, to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

COUNSEL

Daniel H. Shertzer, with him Ralph D. Tive, Baskin, Boreman, Sachs & Gondelman, for appellant.

Reynold J. Kosek, Assistant Attorney General, with him Fred Speaker, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.

Author: Kramer

[ 1 Pa. Commw. Page 348]

This is an appeal from an adjudication and order of the State Civil Service Commission dated May 15, 1969, which in effect dismissed the appeal of Marven M. Brenner, appellant, from his demotion by the Department of Highways as a probationary Real Estate Specialist IV to his prior position as a Real Estate Specialist III.

The facts in the record clearly show that the appellant, because of his exceptionally good employment record in the Pennsylvania Department of Highways for a period of more than 12 years, had received two promotions within the period of three months. His last promotion became effective December 7, 1967, and the

[ 1 Pa. Commw. Page 349]

    letter advising him of his promotion clearly states that his appointment was subject to a probationary status for a period of nine months. The letter of appointment advised the appellant that during the probationary period ". . . the nature of your work will be followed and evaluated to find out whether you are eligible in the eyes of your supervisors to be appointed to a permanent status in your new classification."

On June 7, 1968, appellant was orally removed from his duties as a Real Estate Specialist IV and returned to his duties as a Real Estate Specialist III, from which he had been promoted. Thereafter, the appellant, upon making inquiry of the Civil Service Commission concerning his rights to an appeal, was advised that no formal action had been taken by the appointing authority. On September 12, 1968, the appellant was sent a formal notice of his demotion to become effective September 26, 1968. He had been paid under the higher classification to that later date.

The September 12, 1968 letter gave as the reason for the demotion ". . . inability to perform the administrative and supervisory responsibilities required of a Real Estate Specialist IV." The letter then cited as examples of his behavior three incidents involving the appellant: (a) that during a banquet appellant had asked questions of a speaker concerning an incident related to the appellant's father (but not specifically related to the Department of Highways), and that this question was embarrassing to the Department of Highways; (b) during a safety meeting held in conjunction with the Department's safety program appellant had criticized the Department's district safety advisor and made other statements which were embarrassing to the only female employe present at the meeting; and (c) that the appellant had ordered protective eye equipment for an employe which order was not justified. It should

[ 1 Pa. Commw. Page 350]

    be noted further that at the hearing before the Civil Service Commission there was an additional reason disclosed; the approval by the appellant of certain parking charges, the stubs for which indicated that State employes under appellant's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.