Employment Law

In probably the court’s most significant decision in the area of employment law, it held that a state law barring individuals with certain criminal records from working in facilities that cater to elderly or mentally challenged residents is unconstitutional.



Ruling en banc, the 5-2 majority said in Nixon v. Department of Public Welfare, PICS Case No. 01-2601 (Pa. Commw. en banc Dec. 11, 2001) Smith, J.; Flaherty & McGinley, JJ., dissenting (19 pages), that the amendment to the Older Adults Protective Services Act is too broad. Essentially, the majority held that a person who might be an excellent caregiver should not be banned from the profession on the basis of what, in theory, could be a 20-year-old, minor conviction.



The majority relied on Article I, Section I, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides that “all men are born equally free and independent,” with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Immunity

The year 2001 saw a significant decrease in the number of Commonwealth Court cases dealing with governmental or sovereign immunity – possibly because in the summer, the state Supreme Court bid adieu to the “on-of” distinction in immunity cases.



The distinction had required a plaintiff to prove that his or her injury on property controlled by an agency of the commonwealth was caused by a defect “of” the property, rather than by the presence of a substance or an object “on” the property. The Commonwealth Court had released several conflicting opinions on the issue of whether the distinction still had a place in immunity cases.



The high court finally resolved the conflict, declaring the distinction’s demise in Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, PICS Case No. 01-1060 (Pa. May 24, 2001) Cappy, J. (15 pages). Since Jones, the Common-wealth Court has had little to say about the issue.



There is still much immunity terrain left for the Commonwealth Court to cover, however.



In early 2001, the court made clear the importance of the state Supreme Court’s ruling on attachment in real property cases. In Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, PICS Case No. 00-2479 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2000) Flaherty, C.J. (5 pages), the high court ruled that an object must be attached to the ground to qualify as a fixture for purposes of the real property exception to governmental immunity.



The exception allows a city or other municipality to be sued for the negligent care, custody or control of its real property.



Since Blocker, the Commonwealth Court in Rieger v. Altoona Area School District, PICS Case No. 01-0400 (Pa. Commw. March 2, 2001) Flaherty, J. (10 pages), affirmed a grant of summary judgment against plaintiffs who would have come out on the winning side before the justices’ ruling.



In Rieger, the plaintiffs sued a school district for failure to provide a mat on a school gymnasium’s hardwood floor during cheerleading practice.



But the court denied the claim, because the mats were not affixed to the gym floor.



The court also addressed an interesting immunity claim in February when it said that it did not change the law when it ruled in the 1998 case White v. City of Philadelphia, PICS Case No. 98-0987 (Pa. Commw. April 30, 1998) Smith, J. (9 pages), that the State Highway Law and the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity should be read in conjunction with each other.



Writing for the three-judge panel in Shimko v. Department of Transportation, PICS Case No. 01-0219 (Pa. Commw. Feb. 8, 2001) Friedman, J. (8 pages), Common-wealth Court Judge Rochelle Friedman said that part of the law had been in effect since 1995, and, therefore, an Allegheny County trial court judge was wrong to allow the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the City of Pittsburgh to resubmit their motions for summary judgment after White was issued.

Torts