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.

MICHAEL P. ALTERMAN v. DAVID J. BAKER (01/12/83)

decided: January 12, 1983.

MICHAEL P. ALTERMAN, PETITIONER
v.
DAVID J. BAKER, JOHN F. BURKE, AND PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of John F. Burke v. Board of Probation and Parole, No. 3199 and in case of David J. Baker v. Board of Probation and Parole, No. 3200.

COUNSEL

Thomas E. Mellon, Jr., Mellon and Mellon, for petitioner.

Drew Salaman, for respondents, David J. Baker and John F. Burke.

Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, for respondent, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 125]

Michael P. Alterman seeks review of a decision by the State Civil Service Commission which concluded that, in promoting the petitioner from parole agent III to parole supervisor II, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("board" or "appointing authority") failed to adhere to the appointment-without-examination promotion requirements of section 501*fn1

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 126]

    and violated the anti-discrimination provision of section 905.1*fn2 of the Civil Service Act, as amended.

We trace the genesis of this case to 1977 when the board promoted Mr. Alterman to parole supervisor II in its Philadelphia office. One of the respondents here, David J. Baker, along with Harold M. Shalon, both unsuccessful candidates for the Philadelphia supervisory post, challenged Mr. Alterman's promotion, alleging that the board discriminated against them by relying solely upon written examinations, thereby contravening section 501's criteria for effecting promotions upon merit and seniority without examination.*fn3

The commission agreed with those protestants and, by order of December 27, 1978, directed the appointing authority to (1) vacate the position of parole supervisor II, held by Mr. Alterman in Philadelphia, (2) return him to his former parole agent III position, and (3) proceed to fill the vacancy under any method authorized by the Act.

The board appealed that decision in January of 1979 and, apparently believing that its appeal stayed the commission's December 27 order, retained Mr. Alterman as a parole supervisor II. Only on June 19, 1979 did the board file a motion for a supersedeas of 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.