Zerbe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CASTILLE, Justice.
The issue before this Court is whether an employee who occupies a position which is designated as a major nontenured policymaking position or advisory position is eligible for unemployment compensation after dismissal. For the reasons expressed below, we find that the Commonwealth Court erred by remanding this matter to the Unemployment Compensation Board and, therefore, reverse.
On May 14, 1980, the Governor’s Office issued Management Directive 530.22 which designated all attorney positions in agencies under the Governor’s jurisdiction as “major nontenured…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Branti v. FinkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Stumpp v. Stroudsburg Municipal AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Miceli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Mormak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Housing Authority of Chester v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Allegheny Valley School v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Cambria County Mental Health/Mental Retardation v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Odato v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Conroy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.