Carr, R. v. SCSC (DOT) - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
M.D. Appeal Dkt 3 2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT RACHEL L. CARR : No. 460 MAL 2018 : : v. : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : AND COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, STATE CIVIL SERVICE : COMMISSION : : : PETITION OF: PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are: (1) Is the Commonwealth Court’s decision in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Pickering [v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563 (1968)] and its progeny, which allow a government employer to terminate an employee on the basis of their speech, even when it touches upon a matter of public concern, so long as the employer can demonstrate that an adverse effect could be reasonably foreseen? (2) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr’s Facebook comments, as required by Pickering and its progeny? (3) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr’s Facebook comments, as required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sacks?
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.
