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.

THOMAS S. BRLETIC v. MUNICIPALITY MONROEVILLE (02/04/82)

decided: February 4, 1982.

THOMAS S. BRLETIC, APPELLANT
v.
MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Thomas S. Brletic v. Municipality of Monroeville, No. SA 1079 of 1979.

COUNSEL

Christopher LePore, with him John W. DeWalt, Cooper, LePore & Dreeland, for appellant.

John D. Finnegan, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Blatt, Craig and MacPhail. Opinion by Judge Craig. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case. Dissenting Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Craig

[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 432]

Police applicant Thomas S. Brletic here appeals a decision of the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court

[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 433]

    which held that the Borough of Monroeville's maximum weight restriction for police candidates is valid. We affirm.*fn1

The borough did not permit the applicant to sit for the written component of the civil service examination because his weight at that time exceeded the topmost ("large frame") maximum of 200 pounds made applicable to his height of six feet, one and one-half inches, by the same height/weight tables as those used by the Pennsylvania State Police.

The applicant first contends that the use of this maximum weight standard is unlawful because it (a) constitutes an irrebuttable presumption violative of substantive due process, or (b) is contrary to a Monroeville Home Rule Charter provision, adopting the Borough Code requirement that civil service examinations shall be "practical" and shall "fairly test . . . merit and fitness . . . to discharge the duties of the employment sought."*fn2 A related contention is that the local agency's decision relied upon findings not supported by substantial evidence.

The applicant's second major contention is that he was also deprived of due process, apparently in a procedural sense, because he did not have sufficient advance notice of the weight standard.

The substantive issues present the inquiry: Does the maximum weight standard constitute an invalid irrebuttable presumption or is it otherwise not reasonably related ...


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.