Marcy J. Weiss : State Civil Service Commission …webcontent.oa.pa.gov/legal/documents/30221.pdfCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Marcy J. Weiss : State Civil Service Commission : v. :

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