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.

RICHARD E. WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/14/83)

decided: December 14, 1983.

RICHARD E. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission in case of Richard F. Williams v. Department of Transportation, Appeal No. 2787.

COUNSEL

David A. Johnston, Jr., for petitioner.

Michael J. McCaney, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Williams, Jr., Doyle and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 114]

Petitioner appeals from the order of the State Civil Service Commission which affirmed the action of the Department of Transportation in furloughing the Petitioner from his position as Transportation Construction Manager I.

As required under Section 802 of the Civil Service Act,*fn1 Petitioner's furlough was determined by a ranking system under which the Department compared employees' scores derived from recent performance

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 115]

    evaluation reports (PERs).*fn2 In compiling the scores which were the basis for Petitioner's furlough ranking, the department used PERs which were not based upon the same number of performance factors.*fn3

In Petitioner's initial appeal to our Court, Williams v. Department of Transportation, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 153, 439 A.2d 233 (1982) (Williams I), we remanded this case for further evidence, citing with approval the Commission's case of Weikal v. Department of Transportation,*fn4 in which the Commission found the Department's practice of comparing PERs based upon different performance factors to be discriminatory, requiring reinstatement of the employee.

On remand to the Commission, it was established that the furlough determination in this case was made by comparing PERs based upon different factors. The Commission distinguished this case from their decision in Weikal, however on the basis of additional evidence indicating that the Petitioner would still have been furloughed had only common PER factors been considered.*fn5 On the basis of this evidence, the Commission

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 116]

    found that the Petitioner suffered no prejudice by the Department's error, ...


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.