Uzarski
v. State Police – Cmwlth. Court – May 19, 2015
Civilian
employee of State Police was entitled to due process protections (notice,
opportunity to be heard, etc.) in 2 Pa. C.S. 501 et seq., before state employer
could hold her financially responsible for lost/damaged state property.
Neither
of two internal memos from one of the employee’s supervisors to another met the
minimum due process requirements under the law. Neither was served on Petitioner, nor did
either advise her of any right to appeal. There was no indication on either memo (the
latter of which was an “adjudication”) that the aggrieved person was even
copied or that either was a final administrative decision on the matter. Accordingly,
in the absence of service on Petitioner and, therefore, adequate notice of the
decision, and the complete lack of any notice regarding her right to appeal,
the memo simply was insufficient to trigger a thirty-day limit within which to
file a petition for review.
Section
504 of the Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 504, in pertinent part, provides that: “No
adjudication of a Commonwealth agency shall be valid as to any party
unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and an
opportunity to be heard. . . .” 2 Pa. C.S. § 504 (emphasis added). Moreover, in Holloway v. Lehman, 671
A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), this Court noted that, “[w]hat process is
due, at a minimum, to one who has lost property via the action of a
Pennsylvania State agency or Commonwealth official is addressed in the [Administrative
Agency Law].” That process includes, at
a minimum, an opportunity to be heard, to have testimony be recorded, to have a
full and complete record of the proceedings be kept, the right to examine and
cross-examine witnesses and a written adjudication with findings and reasons
for the decision.
