# Commonwealth v. Johnstown Redevelopment Authority

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 25, 1991 · 527 Pa. 71

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731594

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appellant, v. JOHNSTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 25, 1991
- **Citations:** 527 Pa. 71; 588 A.2d 497; 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,400; 1991 Pa. LEXIS 73
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nix
- **Judges:** Cappy, Flaherty, Larsen, McDERMOTT, Nix, Papadakos, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9731594

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting “that applicability of the phrase ‘best able and most competent’ has caused considerable consternation”

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the majority’s reasoning fails on two grounds. First, as Judge Craig aptly notes in his Dissenting Opinion, the Authority should not be permitted to restrict the hiring process by blinding itself to independent facts of which committee members are aware. The Authority’s position that it was unaware of Ms. Morris’ prior work *81 experience because that information was not listed on the application is incredible in light of the fact that two committee members possessed personal knowledge of Ms. Morris’ prior employment with the Authority. Moreover, the qualifications of that previous employment coincided precisely with those of the position the committee sought to fill in the instant case. The Authority also cannot conceivably deny having knowledge of Ms. Morris’ race simply because that fact was not stated on the application; the committee members who were personally acquainted with Ms. Morris most certainly were aware of her race. To paraphrase Judge Craig, the authority should not be permitted to don “vision-narrowing blinders” at its own choosing.
It should also be emphasized that the Court, in determining that the commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, has substituted its own factfindings for those of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner is free to believe or disbelieve any evidence presented, and the examiner’s findings are to be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. See also Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia v. Farrell, 99 Pa.Commw. 631, 513 A.2d 1123 (1986); Ross v. Civil Service Commission, 98 Pa.Commw. 565, 511 A.2d 941 (1986); Appeal of McClellan, 82 Pa.Commw. 75, 475 A.2d 867 (1984). The examiner specifically found that the Authority’s witness could not explain why Ms. Morris was not hired for the position, Finding of Fact No. 27; thus, the Authority’s evidence, cited by the majority, that the other applicants had more work experience than Ms. Morris obviously was rejected by the examiner. 1
Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate the order of the Commission.
. The examiner’s finding of fact is to be controlling except where not supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. See also Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia v. Farrell, 99 Pa.Commw. 631, 513 A.2d 1123 (1986); Ross v. Civil Service Commission, 98 Pa.Commw. 565, 511 A.2d 941 (1986); Appeal of McClellan, 82 Pa. Commw. 75 , 475 A.2d 867 (1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731594. Public record. Not legal advice.