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.

ALVIN R. CHAVIS v. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY BOARD ASSISTANCE (03/10/77)

decided: March 10, 1977.

ALVIN R. CHAVIS, APPELLANT
v.
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY BOARD OF ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of Alvin R. Chavis v. Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, Department of Public Welfare, No. 1778, dated April 2, 1976.

COUNSEL

Germaine Ingram, with her Harold I. Goodman, for appellant.

Lynne Mountz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Blatt

[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 206]

Alvin Chavis (appellant) was hired as a probationary Income Maintenance Worker Trainee by the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance (Board) in January of 1975. He attained regular status as an Income Maintenance Worker the following August. Deficiencies in his record-keeping duties, however, led

[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 207]

    to an investigation of his work by his superior which resulted in his being suspended without pay on October 24, 1975. On December 6, 1975, he received a letter from the Board dated December 4, 1975, which informed him that for the reasons stated therein he had been demoted to Income Maintenance Worker Trainee and removed from that position effective December 3, 1975. A timely appeal from the demotion and removal was filed with the State Civil Service Commission (Commission), but, after a hearing, the Commission dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.

Our scope of review here is defined in Section 44 of the Administrative Agency Law,*fn1 71 P.S. § 1710.44, which requires this Court to affirm an adjudication of the Commission unless constitutional rights were violated, the adjudication was not in accordance with the law, or a necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial evidence. The appellant argues here that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated because the notice given to him by the Board of his demotion and removal was deficient.

Section 950 of the Civil Service Act,*fn2 71 P.S. § 741.950, provides in relevant part:

Every person in the classified service shall be furnished with written notice of any personnel action taken with respect to him pursuant to the provisions of the act. Such notice . . . shall be furnished within the limits prescribed by the rules of the commission. The notice shall in the case of the permanent separation . . . or demotion of a regular employe set forth the reason or reasons for the action.

The regulations of the Commission in the ...


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.