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.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. RICHARD L. FASY AND ROBERT WILLIAMS (03/16/87)

decided: March 16, 1987.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, APPELLANT
v.
RICHARD L. FASY AND ROBERT WILLIAMS, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in case of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Richard L. Fasy and Robert Williams, No. 4138 June Term, 1984.

COUNSEL

Vincent J. Walsh, Jr., with him, G. Roger Bowers, for appellant.

Kenneth M. Rodgers, Kenneth M. Rodgers, P.C., for appellees.

Judges Craig and Doyle, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 614]

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming the decision of a hearing examiner, which reinstated Robert Williams, an employee of SEPTA, with back pay. We affirm.

Williams was hired by SEPTA on December 13, 1982. He worked in SEPTA's Regional High Speed Line (RHSL) division. Williams was first discharged as of October 28, 1983. Following a post-determination hearing, the hearing examiner, Philip M. Caldwell, P.E., issued a decision dated January 31, 1984, reinstating Williams "effective the week of February 12, 1984, to [his] former position or a position of an equivalent salary grade for which [he is], or may be qualified."

On February 10, 1984, Williams was offered a position by SEPTA which would have reinstated him as of

[ 104 Pa. Commw. Page 615]

February 12, 1984 but which would have transferred him to the City Transit division as a "Backfill District Dispatcher." He refused this assignment and was discharged on February 16, 1984 for "failure to appear for an assignment, absent without leave and willful and wanton misconduct." The underlying reason for Williams' refusal to accept the City Transit position was that City Transit employees are covered under the provisions of the Social Security Act*fn1 and not by the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974,*fn2 which is applicable to employees of the RHSL division of SEPTA and his fear that this transfer would jeopardize substantial pension benefits. By letter dated March 8, 1984, Williams requested a post-determination hearing pursuant to SEPTA's Policy Instruction No. 6.6.1. The hearing was held on April 6, 1984 and Hearing Examiner Richard L. Fasy, in a comprehensive decision, determined that the position SEPTA offered Williams on February 10, 1984 was inconsistent with the decision of Hearing Examiner Caldwell and that SEPTA should therefore reinstate Williams to the position he formerly held prior to his discharge on October 26, 1983 or to another supervisory administrative management position of equal salary grade within SEPTA's RHSL division for which Williams was qualified, with back pay from February 12, 1984.

On appeal the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, without taking additional evidence, affirmed Hearing Examiner Fasy's decision and findings of fact.

Our scope of review of a local agency, where a full and complete record has been made before the agency, is limited to ...


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.