Opinion
No. 421 C.D. 2011
02-06-2012
Francis J. Streff, Appellant v. Civil Service Commission
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Francis J. Streff (Streff), pro se, appeals from the May 9, 2011, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (trial court), which affirmed the determination of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia (Commission) upholding Streff's dismissal from employment. We affirm.
Streff was employed as an Instrumentation Technician I for the Water Department of the City of Philadelphia (Department) until his employment was terminated on August 5, 2009, for falsifying records, failing to complete assignments, and failing to follow supervisors' orders. Streff appealed his employment termination to the Commission.
An evidentiary hearing was held before the Commission. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the Commission found that Streff was inefficient in the performance of his duties. The Commission concluded that the Department met its burden of establishing just cause for Streff's dismissal and, therefore, denied Streff's appeal. Streff then filed an appeal with the trial court, which affirmed. This appeal now follows.
Streff was represented by counsel at the hearing.
Where, as here, the trial court takes no additional evidence, our scope of review of a Commission decision is limited to determining whether the Commission violated constitutional rights, abused its discretion or committed an error of law, or whether the Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence. City of Philadelphia v. Civil Service Commission, 565 Pa. 265, 272 n.2, 772 A.2d 962, 966 n.2 (2001).
Streff contends that the Commission erred by failing to promptly hear Streff's appeal and by failing to allow Streff the opportunity to present after-discovered evidence. Although these issues are presented in Streff's Statement of Questions Involved (Streff's Br. at 6), they are not developed in his brief and are therefore waived for appellate review. See Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 729 A.2d 1254, 1256 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
Even if preserved, these issues lack merit. First, Streff did not object to the manner in which the Commission scheduled the hearing. Indeed, Streff himself agreed to the continuance of the January 5, 2010, hearing. (N.T., 1/5/10, at 3.) Second, the "after-discovered" evidence, by Streff's own account, was provided to him just before the hearing. (Streff Br. at 6.)
Streff further contends that the Commission's determination that the Department had just cause to dismiss Streff from civil service employment is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
Philadelphia Civil Service Regulation 17.01 provides that a dismissal of an employee in the civil service "shall be for just cause only." 351 Pa. Code §7.7-303. This Court has interpreted the "just cause" requirement "to mean that the cause should be personal to the employee [that] renders him unfit for the position he occupies and makes his dismissal justifiable and for the good of the service." City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 572 A.2d 1298, 1302 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). "Thus, all the law requires is that the cause for dismissal concern the inefficiency, delinquency or misconduct of the employee." Id.
In this case, the Department presented the testimony of Maintenance Superintendent Lawrence Philyaw and documentary evidence regarding Streff's poor performance. Philyaw testified at length about Streff's disciplinary history, Streff's disciplinary hearings, and what he had observed regarding Streff's poor performance. (N.T., 4/6/10, at 13-19, 31-51.) The documents presented by the Department reveal a history of Streff's performance problems. (Commission Ex. Nos. D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8.) Although Streff also testified at the hearing and presented the testimony of his shop steward, the Commission found the Department's testimony and evidence to be more credible and persuasive. Streff's contentions in this appeal amount to little more than a challenge to the Commission's credibility determinations, which are beyond the scope of appellate review. See Davis v. Civil Service Commission, 820 A.2d 874, 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Based upon our review, the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence and support the conclusion that Streff was dismissed for just cause.
Streff testified that he performed his job well and did not agree with Philyaw's assessment. (N.T., 4/6/10, at 47-51, 58-59.) --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2012, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, dated May 9, 2011, is affirmed.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge