Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Woods v. State Civil Service Commission

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 27, 2006No. 47 WAP 2005Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Newman

I agree with the Majority’s determination that the removal letter provided sufficient notice to Woods. However, I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that the New Castle Youth Development Center (Center) lacked just cause for his termination.

Woods worked as a counselor for juveniles who were committed to the Center after being adjudicated delinquent. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) 37a, 39a). Woods was assigned to a cottage unit that housed approximately thirty-five children. (R.R. 38a). He served as a role model to these students and interacted with their families and the court on…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Game Commission v. State Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Galant v. COM., DEPT. OF ENV. RES.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Commonwealth v. GrantCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Department of Corrections v. RocheCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Stone v. State Correctional InstitutionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API