marcy j. weiss : state civil service commission...
TRANSCRIPT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Marcy J. Weiss : State Civil Service Commission
:
v. :
:
Potter County Children, Youth, and :
Families : Appeal No. 30221
Marcy J. Weiss Thomas R. Shaffer
Pro Se Attorney for Appointing Authority
ADJUDICATION
This is an appeal by Marcy J. Weiss challenging her suspension
(pending investigation) and removal from regular County Casework Supervisor
(Local Government) employment with the Potter County Children, Youth, and
Families. A hearing was held August 1, 2019, at the State Civil Service
Commission’s Western Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania before Hearing
Officer Odelfa Smith Preston.
The Commissioners have reviewed the Notes of Testimony and
exhibits introduced at the hearing. The issue before the Commission is whether the
appointing authority had just cause to remove appellant.1
1 When an appointing authority suspends an employee pending investigation and subsequently removes the employee
based upon information obtained through that investigation, the period of suspension will be deemed part of the
removal action. Woods v. State Civil Service Commission (New Castle Youth Development Center, Department of
Public Welfare), 865 A.2d 272, 274 n. 3 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004); 4 Pa. Code § 101.21(b)(2). Appellant having
been suspended, effective April 8, 2019, pending investigation, and having remained on suspension until her
removal by letter dated May 10, 2019, we consider removal, effective as of the date of suspension, the sole personnel
action to be reviewed through this appeal.
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. By letter dated April 8, 2019, appellant was issued
a suspension (pending investigation) from her
position as County Casework Supervisor (Local
Government), regular status, effective April 8,
2019. The appointing authority charged appellant
with creating a hostile work environment. Comm.
Ex. A.
2. By letter dated May 10, 2019, appellant was
removed from her position effective May 10, 2019.
The appointing authority charged:
It has been determined that you in fact
did create a hostile work environment
with your actions toward other co-
workers and it was also concluded that
you were grossly insubordinate as is
evidenced by the attached affidavits
and by your own admission that you
were trying to get the new Director to
leave or be terminated.
Comm. Ex. C.
3. The appeal was properly raised before this
Commission and was heard under Section
3003(7)(i) of the Civil Service Act, as amended.2
2 Appellant’s request for a hearing under 3003(7)(ii) was denied. Comm. Ex. E; N.T. p. 10.
3
4. On May 4, 2004, appellant signed the appointing
authority’s Orientation Packet agreeing she
understood its contents, which included the Code of
Ethics’ provision requiring employees to “value the
worth and dignity of every person and treat every
person with respect.” N.T. pp. 42, 44; AA Exs. 4,
5.
5. On December 20, 2004, appellant signed an
acknowledgment she had read and understood the
appointing authority’s Personnel Policy Manual.
The Personnel Policy Manual includes a provision
stating insubordinate and/or disrespectful conduct
may lead to removal from employment. N.T. pp.
47-49; AA Exs. 6, 7.
6. Appellant has been a County Casework Supervisor
since 2013 or 2014. However, she was not assigned
supervisory duties and was working in the main
office area with other staff. N.T. p. 19; AA Ex. 3.
7. In October 2018, former Director of Children and
Youth Joyce Glassmire retired. N.T. pp. 17-18; AA
Ex. 3.
4
8. Upon Glassmire’s retirement, Human Services
Administrator James Kockler was appointed Acting
Director of Children and Youth; appellant was
assigned daily supervision of staff and programs.
N.T. p. 18; AA Ex. 3.
9. In November 2018, appellant was relocated to
Glassmire’s former office so she could properly
conduct supervisory, staff, and disciplinary
meetings. N.T. pp. 19-20; AA Ex. 3.
10. In February 2019, Kockler met with several local
Superintendents who expressed concern about
appellant’s unprofessional behavior. Kockler also
spoke with a Principal, a local judge, and several
law enforcement officers who stated they did not
want appellant promoted to the Director of Children
and Youth position due to her lack of
professionalism. N.T. pp. 22-23; AA Ex. 3.
11. Subsequently, Kockler met with the appointing
authority’s Commissioners and relayed the
concerns he had heard from the Superintendents,
Principal, local judge, and law enforcement officials
regarding appellant’s unprofessionalism. N.T.
pp. 22-23; AA Ex. 3.
5
12. Kockler asked the Commissioners permission to
seek a candidate from outside of the appointing
authority to fill the vacant Director of Children and
Youth position. N.T. pp. 23-24; AA Ex. 3.
13. Eventually, Kockler received the Civil Service list
which listed one candidate: Thomas Patterson. N.T.
p. 24.
14. After Patterson was interviewed, he was selected for
the Director of Children and Youth position. N.T.
p. 24; AA Ex. 3.
15. After Patterson was hired, Kockler told appellant
she needed to return to her prior office area to allow
Patterson to use the office space. N.T. p. 25; AA
Ex. 3.
16. Appellant was upset she had not been considered for
or given the vacant position and very reluctant to
return to her previous office location. N.T. p. 25;
AA Ex. 3.
17. On or about March 4, 2019, Patterson began
employment as the Director of Children and Youth.
N.T. p. 26; AA Ex. 3.
6
18. On or about March 12, 2019, when appellant
returned from an approved vacation, she informed
Kockler she was going to either get Patterson fired
or force him to leave. N.T. p. 26; AA Ex. 3.
19. On April 5, 2019, the Union Steward filed a
grievance on behalf of several employees who were
alleging appellant created a hostile work
environment. N.T. pp. 27-31; AA Exs. 1, 3.
20. Kockler reviewed the grievance; he determined the
allegations were serious and served as a basis for a
suspension pending investigation. Comm. Ex. A;
N.T. pp. 32-34; AA Ex. 2.
21. Kockler interviewed several employees. N.T.
pp. 32, 34-35.
22. Kockler obtained affidavits from Deputy
Administrator for Area Agency on Aging Isaac
Musser, contractor Paralegal Andrea Skaggs, Clerk
Typist 3 Sharon Prentice, Caseworker 2 Heather
Morey, Caseworker 2 Teresa Ostrom, Intensive
Case Manager Scott Clark, and Caseworker 3
Christopher Koech. He received witness statements
from an additional two employees. N.T. pp. 35-36;
AA Ex. 3. N.T. pp. 32, 34-35.
7
23. Appellant supervised Morey, Ostrom, and Clark.
Musser, Prentice, and Skaggs were in the same
office as appellant. N.T. pp. 84-85; AA Ex. 3.
24. Appellant stated she would not help Patterson,
would make work “miserable” for him, and was
trying to “get rid” of him by causing him to either
leave or get fired. N.T. pp. 61-62, 72, 83, 92-93,
127-128; AA Ex. 3.
25. Appellant stated she would dig up “dirt” on
Patterson and, “Once this stuff comes out, he won’t
last.” N.T. pp. 127-128; AA Ex. 3.
26. Appellant referred to contractor Paralegal Skaggs
as, “It” or “Princess” including stating, “What is It
doing?” “Here comes Princess” “Why is It in my
office?” and “Why is It still here?” N.T. pp. 62, 73,
93, 125; AA Ex, 3.
27. Appellant stated Skaggs’ paralegal position was not
necessary and could be filled by somebody already
working with the appointing authority. N.T. p. 125;
AA Ex. 3.
8
28. Appellant called Skaggs a “c*nt,” “f*cking idiot,”
and a “f*cking c*nt.” N.T. pp. 62, 83, 93, 125, 131;
AA Ex. 3.
29. When Skaggs needed assistance with a job task,
appellant stated, “I’m not doing it just so I can p*ss
her off” and, “My next order of business is to get
that b*tch [Skaggs] out of here.” N.T. pp. 83-84;
AA Ex. 3
30. When Skaggs asked for a court file, appellant stated
she would have it to appellant by February 25, 2019.
However, on February 25, 2019, the file was not
complete and appellant was not in the office.
Skaggs asked for the file several times; appellant
did not provide the information until March 5, 2019.
N.T. pp. 126, 131-132; AA Ex. 3.
31. Appellant assigned cases to Intensive Case
Manager Scott Clark, but did not inform him she
had done so. N.T. pp. 64-66, 96-97, 113-115; AA
Ex. 3.
32. Referring to Clark, appellant stated, “I will do what
I can to get rid of him.” N.T. pp. 85, 127; AA Ex. 3.
9
33. When Clark was not at work, appellant rearranged
the office and relocated Clark’s work area. She
informed staff, “I need you to eliminate a space for
Scott [Clark].” When asked where Clark would
work, appellant stated, “I don’t care. He can go
wherever.” N.T. pp. 97, 106-107; AA Ex. 3.
34. Clerk Typist 3 Prentice entered supervision notes
into Clark’s files because appellant refused to do so.
N.T. pp. 98, 102; AA Ex. 3.
35. When Ostrom asked for assistance from appellant,
appellant replied, “I don’t give a f*cking sh*t” or “I
don’t know. You figure it out.” N.T. pp. 84-85; AA
Ex. 3.
36. When Caseworker 2 Morey asked for help appellant
would reply, “Do what you want” or “it’s above my
pay grade.” N.T. pp. 73-74; AA Ex. 3.
37. Appellant often told Prentice to do her
duties. Appellant would state, “You know how to
do it. You just do it.” or “You will do it [the job I
am requesting] because I am the boss.” N.T. pp. 98-
100; AA Ex. 3.
10
38. Kockler provided a draft of a removal letter, the
affidavits, and the statements to the
Commissioners. N.T. p. 36.
39. The investigation concluded with the determination
appellant had created a hostile work environment
and her actions were grossly insubordinate. N.T.
pp. 38-40.
DISCUSSION
At issue before the Commission is whether the appointing authority had
just cause to remove appellant from her County Casework Supervisor (Local
Government) position. The appointing authority alleges appellant exhibited
behavior that created a hostile work environment, violated personnel policies and
the code of ethics, and was grossly insubordinate. The appointing authority further
alleges appellant harassed her coworkers, failed to value the worth and dignity of
her colleagues, failed to treat her colleagues with respect, and engaged in other
disrespectful conduct.
The appointing authority bears the burden of proving just cause for
removal of an employee and must prove the substance of the charges underlying the
removal. Long v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 112 Pa.
Commw. 572, 535 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). Factors supporting the just
cause for removal of a civil service employee must be related to the employee's job
11
performance and touch in some logical manner upon the employee's competency and
ability to perform her job duties. Woods v. State Civil Service Commission, 590 Pa.
Commw. 337, 912 A.2d 803 (2006).
The appointing authority presented the testimony of Human Services
Administrator James Kockler, Deputy Administrator for Area Agency on Aging
Isaac Musser, Caseworker 2 Heather Morey, Caseworker 2 Teresa Ostrom, Clerk
Typist 3 Sharon Prentice, Intensive Case Manager Scott Clark, and contracted
Paralegal Andrea Skaggs. Appellant testified on her own behalf.
Human Services Administrator Kockler explained the recent personnel
changes. Prior to October 2018, appellant was a Supervisor but had never been given
the responsibilities and duties associated with the position. N.T. p. 19; AA Ex. 3.
When former Director of Children and Youth Joyce Glassmire retired in
October 2018, Kockler was appointed to the Acting Director of Children and Youth
position and appellant was responsible for overseeing the daily supervision of staff
and programs. N.T. pp. 17-18; AA Ex. 3. Appellant supervised Morey, Ostrom,
and Clark. AA Ex. 3. Musser, Prentice, and Skaggs were in the same office as
appellant. AA Ex. 3. In November 2018, appellant’s office location was moved to
Glassmire’s prior work area so she could execute supervisory duties with the
necessary privacy. N.T. pp. 19-20; AA Ex. 3.
In February 2019, Kockler met with several local Superintendents who
informed him the appellant had displayed unprofessional behavior. N.T. pp. 22-23;
AA Ex. 3. Kockler also spoke to a local Principal, a local judge, and several law
enforcement officers who informed him they did not want appellant to become the
next Director of Children and Youth due to her lack of professionalism. N.T. pp. 23-
12
24; AA Ex. 3. Kockler met with the appointing authority’s Commissioners, relayed
the concerns he had heard about appellant’s unprofessional behavior, and asked for
and received permission to seek an outside candidate for the vacant Director of
Children and Youth position. N.T. pp. 22-23; AA Ex. 3.
After the interview and hiring process, Thomas Patterson was selected
for the vacancy. N.T. p. 24; AA Ex. 3. Kockler informed appellant she would need
to relocate to her original office space. N.T. p. 25; AA Ex. 3. Appellant was upset
she had not been considered for or given the vacant position and was very reluctant
to return to her previous office location. N.T. p. 25; AA Ex. 3. Patterson began his
employment during appellant’s approved vacation. N.T. p. 26; AA Ex. 3. Upon her
return to work on or about March 12, 2019, she told Kockler she would either get
Patterson fired or force him to leave. N.T. p. 26; AA Ex. 3.
In addition, Kockler explained the investigation he performed in his
capacity as the Human Services Administrator. On April 5, 2019, the Union Steward
filed a grievance on behalf of several employees; she informed Kockler there were
employees stating appellant was creating a hostile work environment. N.T. pp. 27-
31; AA Exs. 1, 3. Based upon the seriousness of the allegations in the grievance,
Kockler issued appellant the suspension (pending investigation). Comm. Ex. A;
N.T. pp. 32-34; AA Ex. 2.
To investigate the allegations, Kockler interviewed several employees.
N.T. pp. 32, 34-35. Kockler also obtained affidavits from Deputy
Administrator Isaac Musser, contracted Paralegal Andrea Skaggs, Clerk Typist 3
Sharon Prentice, Caseworker 2 Heather Morey, Caseworker 2 Teresa Ostrom,
Intensive Case Manager Scott Clark, and Caseworker 3 Christopher Koech. N.T.
13
pp. 32, 35-36; AA Ex. 3. He received witness statements from an additional two
employees. N.T. pp.35-36. He provided the affidavits to the appointing authority’s
Commissioners along with a draft of a removal letter. N.T. p. 36. The
Commissioners determined appellant’s behavior created a hostile work environment
and her actions were grossly insubordinate. N.T. pp. 38-40.
Multiple witnesses testified about appellant’s hostile behavior while
working. Contracted Paralegal Skaggs stated she heard appellant call her “It” and
state, “Why is It in my office?” and “Why is It still here?” N.T. p. 125; AA Ex. 3.
She also heard appellant call her a “c*nt” and a “f*cking c*nt” in the office. N.T.
pp. 125, 131; AA Ex. 3. Further, appellant told Skaggs her job was not necessary
and could be filled from within the appointing authority. N.T. p. 125; AA Ex. 3.
When Skaggs asked for assistance, appellant would make statements such as, “I
don’t feel like working” and, “I will get to it whenever.” N.T. p. 126; AA Ex. 3. If
appellant offered help, she would tell Skaggs a date the information would be
available, but not provide the information at the promised time. N.T. pp. 126, 131-
132; AA Ex. 3. For example, when Skaggs asked for a court file, appellant stated
she would have it to Skaggs by February 25, 2019. N.T. pp. 126, 131-132; AA Ex.
3. However, on February 25, 2019, the file was not complete and appellant was not
in the office. Skaggs asked for the file several times; appellant did not provide the
information until March 5, 2019. N.T. pp. 126, 131-132; AA Ex. 3.
Musser, Morey, and Prentice provided testimony regarding appellant’s
treatment of Skaggs. Specifically, they testified they heard appellant refer to Skaggs
as “It” and “Princess” and make remarks such as, “What is It doing?” or “Here comes
Princess.” N.T. pp. 62, 73, 93; AA Ex. 3. In addition, Musser and Prentice heard
appellant call Skaggs a “c*nt.” N.T. pp. 62, 73, 93; AA Ex. 3. Musser heard
14
appellant comment that she was “not doing the case file because Ms. Skaggs is the
one requesting it.” N.T. pp. 73, 78; AA Ex. 3. Musser also witnessed appellant
being disrespectful and demeaning toward Skaggs on multiple occasions. N.T. p.
73-74; AA Ex. 3.
Caseworker 2 Ostrom also provided testimony she heard appellant call
Skaggs a “c*nt” and a “f*cking idiot.” N.T. p. 83; AA Ex. 3. Further, when Skaggs
needed a file, Ostrom heard appellant state, “I’m not doing it just so I can p*ss her
off.” N.T. pp. 83-84. Ostrom also heard appellant state, “My next order of business
is to get that b*tch [Skaggs] out of here.” N.T. p. 84; AA Ex. 3. Clerk Typist 3
Prentice heard appellant state she wanted to get rid of Skaggs and saw appellant act
“very nasty” toward her. N.T. pp. 92-93, 97; AA Ex. 3.
Intensive Case Manager Clark testified about how appellant behaved
toward him. As one example, he explained appellant rearranged the office during
his absence; upon returning to work, he was surprised to realize his desk, computer,
and office supplies were not in the office. N.T. pp. 106-107, 116; AA Ex. 3. N.T.
p. 116. The space to which appellant assigned him has a two-way mirror, which is
not conducive to quality visitations with families. N.T. pp. 116-117. Prentice
corroborated Clark’s testimony regarding the movement of Clark’s workspace
because she heard appellant tell staff, “I need you to eliminate a space for
Scott [Clark].” N.T. p. 97; AA Ex. 3. When Prentice asked appellant where Clark
would work, appellant replied, “I don’t care. He can go wherever.” N.T. p. 97; AA
Ex. 3.
15
Further, when appellant became Clark’s supervisor, she rearranged the
on-call schedule. The schedule appellant created caused Clark concerns about his
ability to comply with a court ordered custody agreement, spend time with his child,
and provide transportation. N.T. pp. 109-110; AA Ex. 3. Skaggs corroborated
Clark’s testimony regarding his on-call schedule. N.T. p. 127.
Clark also explained appellant would assign him cases without telling
him; he would realize the case was assigned to him when Prentice asked a question
or told him he was responsible for the case. N.T. pp. 113-115; AA Ex. 3. Musser
and Prentice corroborated Clark’s testimony regarding case assignments. N.T.
pp. 64-66, 96-97; AA Ex. 3. Musser testified that by doing this, appellant could have
caused Clark to miss deadlines and place a child at risk. N.T. pp. 64-66; AA Ex. 3.
Prentice testified she would provide Clark with supervision notes for his cases even
though it was appellant’s responsibility to do so. N.T. pp. 98, 102; AA Ex. 3. Morey
testified appellant yelled at Clark about his files and paperwork. N.T. pp. 75, 77;
AA Ex. 3. Ostrom heard appellant state, “I will do what I can to get rid of him
[Clark]” and witnessed appellant demean and yell at Clark. N.T. pp. 85, 88-89, 127;
AA Ex. 3. Prentice and Skaggs heard appellant act very nastily toward Clark and
state she wanted to “get rid” of him. N.T. pp. 92-93, 97, 126-127; AA Ex. 3.
Caseworker 2 Ostrom explained although appellant was her supervisor,
appellant would not provide assistance with work tasks; when she requested help,
appellant replied, “I don’t give a f*cking sh*t” or, “I don’t know. You figure it out.”
N.T. pp. 84-85; AA Ex. 3. Ostrom testified appellant’s conduct toward her made
16
her feel “awful.” N.T. p. 86. Morey also testified appellant was her supervisor, but
did not provide proper assistance or training and would state, “Do what you want”
or “It’s above my pay grade.” N.T. pp. 73-74; AA Ex. 3.
Clerk Typist 3 Prentice explained she often fielded telephone calls that
were appellant’s responsibility. N.T. p. 95; AA Ex. 3. In addition, one day appellant
went into a “rage” when she learned Prentice assigned a court case to Patterson. N.T.
p. 96; AA Ex. 3. Appellant would tell Prentice she would assign pre-intake cases in
the computer system, “When I get around to it. When I feel like it.” N.T. p. 96; AA
Ex. 3. Further, when an administrator or director asked appellant to complete a task,
Prentice would do it for her after appellant made comments such as, “You know how
to do it. You just do it.” or “You will do it [the job I am requesting] because I am
the boss.” N.T. pp. 98-100; AA Ex. 3.
Deputy Administrator Musser, Intensive Case Manager Clark, and
contracted Paralegal Skaggs each testified the office atmosphere was “tense”
whenever appellant was present. N.T. pp. 63, 105-106, 123. Caseworker 2 Morey
explained the work atmosphere was “intense,” and she was uncomfortable in the
work environment. N.T. pp. 72-73. Caseworker 2 Ostrom testified that when
appellant was in the office, the atmosphere was like “walking on eggshells, tense,
stressful.” N.T. p. 86. Ostrom also stated she would leave her job if appellant returns
to the office. N.T. p. 86. Clerk Typist 3 Prentice described the atmosphere when
appellant was in the office as unpleasant, stressful, and chaotic. N.T. p. 94.
17
Clark added the office was stressful when appellant was in the office,
and he felt uncomfortable and unwanted in the office. N.T. pp. 105-106, 112. Clark
explained he never stated appellant made him uncomfortable because he felt he was
already singled out and speaking up would escalate the situation. N.T. pp. 117-118.
Skaggs added the office was “toxic,” “almost threatening,” and she
could not work in her regular manner and would isolate herself when appellant was
in the office. N.T. pp. 123-124, 128-129; AA Ex. 3. Skaggs explained when
appellant was not present, the office was more uplifted, productive, and happy, and
people were more at ease. N.T. pp. 123-124. Skaggs testified appellant’s comments
were nasty, her tone made her unapproachable, and she teased those who asked for
help. N.T. p. 130.
Testimony was also introduced in support of the insubordination claim.
Deputy Administrator for Area Agency on Aging Musser testified regarding
appellant’s statements and conduct toward Patterson. In particular, Musser heard
appellant state she would not go out of her way to help Patterson and would “try to
get rid of Tom [Patterson].” N.T. pp. 61-62; AA Ex. 3. Caseworker 2 Morey and
Caseworker 2 Ostrom also heard appellant say they “need” to get rid of Patterson.
N.T. pp. 72, 83; AA Ex. 3. Caseworker 2 Ostrom heard appellant call Patterson a
“f*g idiot.” N.T. p. 83; AA Ex. 3. Clerk Typist 3 Prentice heard appellant state she
wanted to get rid of Patterson and she would make work “miserable” so he would
either leave or get fired. N.T. pp. 92-93; AA Ex. 3. Prentice also heard appellant
state she would not help Patterson and he could learn the job on his own. N.T. p. 93;
AA Ex. 3. In addition, contracted Paralegal Skaggs heard appellant state she would
dig up “dirt” on Patterson and, “Once this stuff comes out, he won’t last.” N.T. pp.
127-128; AA Ex. 3.
18
Human Services Administrator Kockler explained appellant’s conduct
violated the appointing authority’s Code of Ethics and Personnel Policy Manual. On
May 4, 2004, appellant acknowledged receiving the appointing authority’s
Orientation Packet, which included the Code of Ethics provision requiring
employees “to value the worth and dignity of every person and treat every person
with respect.” N.T. pp. 42, 44; AA Exs. 4, 5. In addition, on December 20, 2004,
appellant signed an acknowledgment that she had read and understood the
appointing authority’s Personnel Policy Manual, which includes a provision that
insubordinate behavior and disrespectful conduct are grounds for removal. N.T.
pp. 47-49; AA Exs. 6, 7.
Appellant testified in response to the charges. According to appellant,
the language in the office has always been “colorful,” but she herself does not curse.
N.T. pp. 149-150. Appellant explained she feels she is being targeted and harassed,
including when Skaggs, Clark, and other employees called her a “stupervisor,”
which she found both degrading and hurtful. N.T. pp. 143-144, 149, 151-152, 160-
161. According to appellant, the allegations at issue are “their fault.” N.T. p. 146.
Appellant provided testimony directly related to her interaction with
several of the office personnel. As it pertains to Patterson, appellant acknowledges
directly telling him he needed to be fired. N.T. p. 156. However, she claims they
came to agree they could work together and he was calling them the “dynamic duo.”
N.T. p. 148.
19
Referring to contracted Paralegal Skaggs, appellant acknowledges she
may have called her a “c*nt” once. Appellant denies calling Skaggs “Princess” or
“It” and asserts although she made statements such as, “What is It still doing here,”
they were not directed at Skaggs. N.T. p. 157.
Appellant asserts she was not targeting Intensive Case Manager Clark,
but was implementing disciplinary measures Kockler had told her were proper to
impose. N.T. pp. 148-149. With respect to her treatment of Caseworker 2 Ostrom,
appellant denied stating she did not give a “sh*t” or did not “f*cking care.” N.T.
p. 156. Appellant testified Ostrom would be “exploding” in her office and she would
“jokingly tell her to f*ck off.” N.T. p. 150.
Upon review of the record, the Commission finds the appointing
authority presented sufficient evidence to support the charges of creating a hostile
work environment and exhibiting grossly insubordinate behavior. With respect to
the charge of creating a hostile work environment, contracted Paralegal Skaggs,
Deputy Administrator for Area Agency on Aging Musser, Caseworkers Morey and
Ostrom, and Clerk Typist 3 Prentice credibly3 testified appellant referred to them
with derogatory terms, indicated she wanted to force people to leave their positions,
and created a tense, uncomfortable, stressful, toxic, and threatening environment.
Appellant acknowledges she directed inappropriate names and language toward
coworkers.
3 The Commission has the inherent power to determine the credibility of witnesses and the value of their testimony.
McAndrew v. State Civil Service Commission (Department of Community and Economic Development), 736 A.2d 26
(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
20
As to the charge of exhibiting grossly insubordinate behavior, Kockler,
Musser, Morey, Ostrom, and Prentice credibly testified appellant stated she would
get Patterson fired or force him to leave the Director of Children and Youth position.
In addition, contracted Paralegal Skaggs provided credible testimony she heard
appellant state she would dig up dirt on Patterson and then, once she did so, he would
not last in his position. Appellant acknowledges she directly told Patterson she
believed he should be fired. Appellant’s creation of a hostile work environment and
her grossly insubordinate conduct clearly reflect negatively upon her competency
and ability to perform her job duties. Woods, supra. Accordingly, we enter the
following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The appointing authority has presented evidence
establishing just cause for removal under Section 2607 of
Act 71 of 2018.
ORDER
AND NOW, the State Civil Service Commission, by agreement of its
members, dismisses the appeal of Marcy J. Weiss challenging her suspension
(pending investigation) and removal from regular County Casework Supervisor
(Local Government) employment with the Potter County Children, Youth, and
21
Families and sustains the action of the Potter County Children, Youth, and Families
in the suspension (pending investigation) and removal of Marcy J. Weiss from
regular County Casework Supervisor (Local Government) employment, effective
April 8, 2019.
State Civil Service Commission
Gregory M. Lane
Commissioner
Bryan R. Lentz
Commissioner
Mailed: June 29, 2020