§ 105.12. Requests.
(a) Requests for hearings shall be:
(1) Made in writing.
(2) Personally signed by the individual appealing.
(3) Received or postmarked not more than 20 calendar days after the employee receives notice of the challenged personnel action. A person appealing discrimination under 71 Pa.C.S. § 2704 (relating to prohibition of discrimination) shall appeal within 20 calendar days of the alleged discrimination.
(b) The person appealing shall state clearly and concisely the:
(1) Grounds of the interest of the person in the subject matter.
(2) Facts relied upon.
(3) Relief sought.
(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.
(d) Acceptance of an amendment to an appeal is solely at the discretion of the Commissioners.
(e) Subsections (a)—(d) supplement 1 Pa. Code § § 35.9 and 35.10 (relating to formal complaints generally; and form and content of formal complaints).
Source The provisions of this § 105.12 adopted October 18, 1961; amended October 15, 1964 and April 16, 1970; amended March 29, 1985, effective March 30, 1985, 15 Pa.B. 1151; amended November 15, 1991, effective November 16, 1991, 21 Pa.B. 5334. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (132381) to (132382).
Notes of Decisions An appeal alleging that, although the name of a public employee had on two occasions appeared on a Commission promotion list due to his top performance on a civil service examination, the employee had not on either occasion received any notice of promotions or vacancies or of interviews connected with filling those two vacancies, and that on both occasions a black person was hired to fill the position in question, is sufficiently specific to assert a racial discrimination claim. Filice v. Department of Labor and Industry, 625 A.2d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), aff’d, 660 A.2d 241 (Pa. Cmwlth 1995).
The Commission’s finding of employment discrimination was reversed in light of the public employe’s failure to introduce evidence of disparate treatment from those who were similarly situated in order to establish a prima facie case. Department of Health v. Nwogwugwu, 594 A.2d 847 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).
Letters written by the petitioner to the Commission were amendments sufficiently specific to constitute allegations of discrimination for purposes of this section. Pannacci v. Department of Public Welfare, 560 A.2d 288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); appeal after remand 560 A.2d 288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
The fact that an employee wrote letters which did not indicate his intent to file an appeal of a nonselection and also failed to allege specific facts of discrimination precluded treating those letters as a timely appeal to the Commission. Shepta v. Board of Probation and Parole, 555 A.2d 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
It is within the discretion of the Commission to deny or entertain an amendment to an appeal alleging discrimination. Keim v. Department of Health, 543 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
This section permits the Commission to dismiss sua sponte an appeal for failure to specifically allege discrimination; the dismissal does not violate due process. Keim v. Department of Health, 543 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
An allegation that the appellant was a union member coupled with an allegation that the successful applicant was a nonunion member was insufficient to state a cause of action for discrimination. Keim v. Department of Health, 543 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
An appeal alleging discrimination in violation of section 905.1 of the Civil Service Act (71 P. S. § 905a) must include specific allegations; conclusory allegations may be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Keim v. Department of Health, 543 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
A letter setting forth details of alleged discrimination following an appeal request form which lacked sufficient facts may provide information sufficient to entitle a civil service employee to a hearing. Pannacci v. Civil Service Commission, 516 A.2d 1327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
In determining propriety of Commission’s dismissal of appellant’s appeal, Court would not consider facts which were not of record before the Commission where there had been no allegation that the facts were unavailable at the time appellant filed his appeal with the Commission. Behm v. Civil Service Commission, 494 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Sufficiency of Allegations
Employee satisfied the pleading requirement as to race discrimination by listing allegations of high rate of minority discharge and disparities in the amount of work assigned to minorities, as well as including the names of those who discriminated against him during a specified time period. The Commission’s dismissal for insufficiency of allegations was therefore reversed. Craig v. State Civil Service Commission, 800 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Employee’s request for a hearing contained only a general and conclusory allegation concerning sex discrimination, and no factual support as to discrimination based on disability. Therefore, the Commission’s denial of those claims for insufficiency was correct. Craig v. State Civil Service Commission, 800 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
Cross References This section cited in 4 Pa. Code § 95.71 (relating to review of eligibility or examination results).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
