 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig v. State Civil Service Commission6/7/2002
Daniel Craig, pro se, petitions for review of the order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) denying his request for a hearing because he failed to allege specific acts of discrimination as required by 4 Pa. Code §105.12(c) (Code). We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.
On November 9, 2001, Craig was advised that he was discharged from his Clerk 2 position, probationary Civil Service status, because he did not successfully complete his probationary period. Craig challenged the determination and filled out an appeal request form. On the appeal request form, Craig alleged discrimination and marked boxes stating "race," "sex," and "disability" as the types of alleged discrimination. Craig also answered the four questions provided on the form and provided other information he thought was relevant. The Commission denied the request because there was an insufficient allegation of discrimination. This appeal follows.
Craig raises four issues for our review. Essentially, Craig questions whether the Commission erred in determining that his allegations of discrimination were legally insufficient. Section 105.12(c) of the Code provides:
(c) Appeals alleging discrimination which do not include specific facts relating to discrimination may be dismissed. Specific facts which should appear on the appeal form include:
(1) The acts complained of.
(2) How the treatment differs from treatment of others similarly situated.
(3) When the acts occurred.
(4) When and how the appellant first became aware of the alleged discrimination. 4 Pa. Code §105.12(c).
The Commission may dismiss, sua sponte, an appeal for what is, in effect, a failure to state a cause of action for discrimination under Section 905.1 of the Civil Service Act (Act). Keim. Here, the Commission denied the request for a hearing because Craig failed to allege acts that would constitute discrimination. When an aggrieved party alleges discrimination, the party bears the burden of proof, Pannacci v. State Civil Service Commission, 516 A.2d, 1327, 1328 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), and is required to allege with specificity the basis underlying the claim of discrimination. Bellew v. State Civil Service Commission, 543 A.2d 1266, 1267 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). Discrimination cannot be inferred; there must be affirmative factual support to sustain the allegations. Hunter v. Jones, 417 Pa. 372, 207 A.2d 784 (1965). The Commission may dismiss an appeal when an aggrieved party fails to allege discrimination with sufficient specificity. 4 Pa. Code §105.12(c).
In response to the question of what action(s) occurred which led to his belief that he was discriminated against, Craig wrote, "High rate of minority discharges. Unfair policies against minority workers in records department. Work was not evenly disbursed. Asian, white workers were given the least amount of work to be performed." Craig wrote that the actions occurred at the "Department of Environmental Protection Records Department Conshohocken, PA. Actions occurred May 30, 2001 until present time." Craig named three individuals as responsible for the discrimination. He further delineated that "Robert Robinson is believed to be Homosexual who sought discrete bribery tactics against male workers!, Robert Robinson declared disability laws are not important, could not use union representation." His reply to what Civil Service Act and/or Rules were violated was, "Discriminatory."
Craig argues that his removal was discriminatory because Robert Robinson was believed to be a homosexual who bribed male workers. This general and conclusory allegation standing alone is clearly ins
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|