# Snyder v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 26, 1985 · 509 Pa. 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6263411

## Case

- **Full name:** Joan L. SNYDER v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 26, 1985
- **Citations:** 509 Pa. 438; 502 A.2d 1232; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 508
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Files, Flaherty, Hutchinson, Larsen, McDer, McDermott, Mott, Nix, Papadakos, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6263411

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that legislative attempt to authorize political activity by court employees was an unconstitutional infringement upon the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional mandate to administrate all courts and supervise all officers of the judicial branch
- concluding that a statutory provision was suspended to the extent it conflicted with a Pennsylvania Supreme Court administrative directive forbidding court employees from engaging in partisan political activity

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but find it unnecessary to reach or discuss the delicate question whether this Court’s administrative rule precluding employees of the judicial system from running for political office is paramount to a statute which would permit that activity.
Whether or not the rule remains valid in the face of the legislative enactment, this appellant chose to quit her employment without directly testing its validity. I am' at a loss to see how she can now attack it indirectly in this unemployment compensation proceeding after she decided to quit.
Had the system terminated her employment for violation of the rule appellant might question the propriety of the *447 rule as a basis for discharge. Even in such a case the issue would not be the legal validity of the rule, but whether it was so unreasonable that the employee’s refusal to obey it was not willful misconduct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6263411. Public record. Not legal advice.