reinstating employee's back pay because borough did not establish that employee failed to mitigate her damages
How later courts described this case
- reinstating employee's back pay because borough did not establish that employee failed to mitigate her damages
- “An individual employed by a government agency does not enjoy a property right in her employment unless she has an expectation of continued employment. . . . That expectation may be guaranteed by statute, contract, or be quasi- contractual in nature. If the individual has such an expectation, she is entitled to notice and a hearing under Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 553. . . . If, however, the individual does not have an expectation of continued employment, she is an at-will employee who does not have a right to a hearing.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court. Appellant’s status as an at-will employee was not altered by the Borough’s failure to implement a comprehensive personnel system pursuant to the Home Rule Charter. As noted in the Commonwealth Court opinion, the failure of a legislative body to enact implementing legislation does not confer rights on the parties who would be affected by the legislation. See DeAngelis v. Delliponti, 152 Pa. Commw. 518 , 620 A.2d 35 (1993). Accordingly, because Appellant was not made a civil service employee, she did not acquire the right to continued employment and does not have a property interest in her position as Administrative Assistant.
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.