V. McGriff v. SCSC (Phila. County Assistance Office, DPW) (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Valerya McGriff, Petitioner v. State Civil Service Commission (Philadelphia County Assistance Office, Department of Public Welfare), Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : : : No. 2671 C.D. 2010 SUBMITTED: August 19, 2011 HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: October 28, 2011 Valerya McGriff, pro se, petitions for review of the order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission), which dismissed her challenge to a oneday suspension imposed on her by her employer, the Philadelphia County Assistance Office (County). We affirm. In April 2010, McGriff was given a one-day unpaid suspension from her employment for alleged unprofessional conduct. McGriff filed an appeal with the Commission, and a hearing was scheduled. However, before the hearing was held, the County moved for dismissal on mootness grounds. The County stated that McGriff s suspension had been retroactively reduced to a written reprimand, and that she would receive full back pay and benefits. McGriff opposed the motion, but the Commission granted it, dismissing the case. The Commission denied McGriff s motion for reconsideration, and an appeal to this court followed. On appeal, McGriff argues that the dismissal of her appeal was not in accordance with due process or Commission regulations governing hearings. However, the Civil Service Act (Act),1 grants public employees the ability to appeal employment actions allegedly motivated by discrimination, see Section 951(b) of the Act, 71 P.S. § 741.951(b), as well as from any permanent separation, suspension for cause, furlough or demotion . . . . Id. at Section 951(a), 71 P.S. § 741.951(a). McGriff makes no allegation of discrimination, and her suspension for cause has been reduced to a written reprimand. Because the Act includes no provision requiring the Commission to hear appeals from written reprimands, the Commission was well within its discretion in dismissing her case.2 We affirm. _____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge 1 Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. §§ 741.1-741.1005. We do not suggest that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear this case. Indeed, the Act states that the Commission may, upon its own motion, investigate any personnel action taken pursuant to this act, and in its discretion, hold public hearings . . . . Section 951(d), added by Act of August 27, 1963, P.L. 1257, 71 P.S. § 741.951(d). We simply find that the Commission was not required to hear this particular case, and, thus, did not err in dismissing it. 2 2 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Valerya McGriff, Petitioner v. State Civil Service Commission (Philadelphia County Assistance Office, Department of Public Welfare), Respondent : : : : : : : : : : No. 2671 C.D. 2010 ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2011, the order of the State Civil Service Commission in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED. _____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
