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.

JAMES P. HILL v. HARRISBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY (07/19/77)

decided: July 19, 1977.

JAMES P. HILL, APPELLANT
v.
HARRISBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of James P. Hill v. Harrisburg Housing Authority, No. 1768.

COUNSEL

Richard W. Cleckner, with him Cleckner and Fearen, for appellant.

Charles W. Johnston, Jr., with him Handler, Gerber & Weinstock, for appellee.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 158]

James P. Hill (Appellant) appeals the final order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) which sustained the action of the Harrisburg Housing Authority (Authority) in placing Appellant on

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 159]

    involuntary leave of absence status from his position as Maintenance Superintendent.

The present controversy arose following Appellant's appointment to the Authority and notification that he would be evaluated upon the expiration of 90 days to determine whether his initial status as a probationary employe would be upgraded to that of permanent employe. Approximately 123 days thereafter Appellant met with the Executive Director to discuss his status. At this meeting, disagreement ensued and Appellant was suspended for insubordination. It was at this point that hearing was requested.

Hearing was requested by Appellant in the form of a letter to the Executive Director and, thereafter, in the form of a preliminary inquiry. Appellant's request was framed in terms of Sections 951(a) and (b) of the Civil Service Act, Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. ยงยง 741.951(a), 741.951(b),*fn1 and indicated that he was challenging the wrongful

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 160]

    appointment of a new maintenance supervisor in his stead. The Commission notified Appellant that the request for hearing was granted under the terms of Section 951(b).

At hearing, counsel for Appellant informed the Commission that he was unable to proceed under Section 951(b) in that he was unable to make out a case of discrimination pursuant to Section 905.1,*fn2 as mandated by Section 951(b). Although Appellant presented some evidence attempting to justify his position, the Commission sustained an Authority motion to dismiss based on a failure to make out a ...


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.