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.

PURINA M. SOLOMON v. FRED T. CORLETO (07/18/75)

decided: July 18, 1975.

PURINA M. SOLOMON, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED T. CORLETO, ET AL., APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in case of Purina M. Solomon v. Fred T. Corleto, et al., No. 3765 November Term, 1970.

COUNSEL

Yale B. Bernstein, with him Stanley Bashman, for appellant.

Louis F. Hinnon, III, with him James M. Penny, Jr., Assistant City Solicitor, Raymond Kitty, Deputy City Solicitor, and Martin Weinberg, City Solicitor, for appellees.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 363]

In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether a probationary employee, as that term is defined in the Philadelphia Civil Service Regulations, after dismissal, is entitled to 1) a right of appeal, or 2) an opportunity for a hearing challenging the dismissal.

Purina Solomon (Appellant), a former employee of the City of Philadelphia on probationary status, was dismissed from her position of Social Worker I. On April 21, 1969, she was appointed and assigned to the Riverview Home for the Aged. The appointment was subject to a six month probationary period as delineated in Civil Service Regulation 14.01 which states in relevant part:

" Appointments from Eligible Lists. All persons appointed from . . . eligible lists shall be subject to a probationary period of six (6) months. . . . The period of probation is expressly understood to be part of the entrance or promotional examination . . . and that status of the appointee . . . as a permanent employee is not approved until successfully completing her period of probation."

On June 23, 1969, Appellant received her initial performance report which rated her " superior." Thereafter, the reports were not as complimentary. The fifth performance report rated her "satisfactory" in two categories, but called for improvement in five other categories and gave her "no overall rating." That same day, Appellant received a Notice of Separation, and on June 24, 1969, she was served with a Rejection Notice during Probationary Period, thus terminating her employment. Pursuant to Civil Service Regulation 14.042, Appellant was denied both a hearing and right of appeal. That section states:

"An employee who is rejected during the probationary period does not have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission against such action."

Following the denial of a hearing and the right of appeal, Appellant filed a Complaint in equity, praying

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 364]

    that the Court (1) enter a rule upon the Appellees declaring Civil Service Regulation 14.042 unconstitutional; (2) grant a hearing with regard to the dismissal; and (3) grant a right of appeal. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, by order of the Honorable Judge Ned ...


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.