Opinion
Argued February 7, 1980
March 13, 1980.
Employment — Hearing — Dismissal of employe-at-will — Local Agency Law, Act 1968, December 2, P.L. 1133.
1. An assistant county tax assessor who had no statutory or contractual rights granting her tenure but who was an employe at will, had no property rights in her employment, and her discharge was not an adjudication requiring a due process hearing or judicial review under provisions of the Local Agency Law, Act 1968, December 2, P.L. 1133. [103]
Argued February 7, 1980, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 171 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County in case of Sadie Rose Hoffman v. Montour County, No. 235 of 1978.
Dismissal of employe by Montour County Commissioners appealed by employe to the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County. Appeal dismissed. QUIGLEY, J., Specially Presiding. Employe appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
John A. Mihalik, of Hummel, James Mihalik, for appellant.
Robert W. Buehner, Jr., of Marks and Wagner, for appellee.
Sadie Rose Hoffman (employee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County, which dismissed her appeal because the action of the Montour County Board of Commissioners (commissioners) discharging her from her public employment did not constitute an adjudication as defined by Section 11302 of the Local Agency Law, so as to entitle her to a due process hearing by the county and an appeal to court.
Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, formerly 53 P. S. § 11302, repealed by Section 2(a) of the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, § 20002(a) [1429]. A similar provision is found in the Administrative Law and Procedure Code, 2 Pa. C.S. § 101.
On December 8, 1977, the commissioners discharged the employee from her position as assistant tax assessor for the county. A vociferous disagreement between employee and her supervisor a couple of days earlier precipitated the commissioners' action. At the employee's request, the commissioners held a hearing on the matter of her discharge, and decided not to reinstate her.
This case is controlled by our holding in Amesbury v. Luzerne County Institution District, 27 Pa. Commw. 418, 366 A.2d 631 (1976). There we held that an employee's discharge had to affect a property right in the employment in order to constitute an adjudication requiring a due process hearing under Section 11304 of the Local Agency Law.
Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, formerly 53 P. S. § 11304, repealed by Section 2(a) of the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, § 20002(a) [1429]. A similar provision is found in the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 553.
The specific issue therefore is whether or not the employee had any property right in her county position.
Here, as in Amesbury, supra, the employee had no statutory or contractual rights granting tenure in her public employment. Thus, she was an employee at will who could be discharged at any time. Employee's status, devoid of any property rights in her employment, made a hearing unnecessary before discharging her. Hence, the commissioners were not required to adhere to due process standards at the hearing they voluntarily granted her.
The employee also contends that she was discharged for exercising her first amendment right of free speech. Because the subjects of the disagreement were purely personal concerns (whether justified or not) constitutionally-protected speech was not involved. We therefore must consider the free speech argument devoid of merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the lower court.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 1980, the January 5, 1979 order of the Montour County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
President Judge BOWMAN did not participate in the decision in this case.