[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO:Wecht, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA RESTAURANT AND 

LODGING ASSOCIATION, STORMS 

RESTAURANT AND CATERING, LLC 

D/B/A STORMS RESTAURANT, 

LAWRENCEVILLE BREWERY, INC., 

D/B/A THE CHURCH BREW WORKS, 

1215 INCORPORATED, D/B/A RITA'S 

ITALIAN ICE, DIRT DOCTORS 

CLEANING SERVICE LLC, AND 

MODERN CAFE INC.

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH

v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 79 CD 2016, affirming 

the Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County entered 

December 21, 2015 at No. GD 15-

16442.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018

PENNSYLVANIA RESTAURANT AND 

LODGING ASSOCIATION, STORMS 

RESTAURANT AND CATERING LLC 

D/B/A STORMS RESTAURANT, 

LAWRENCEVILLE BREWERY INC.D/B/A 

THE CHURCH BREW WORKS, 1215 

INCORPORATED, D/B/A RITA'S ITALIAN 

ICE, DIRT DOCTORS CLEANING 

SERVICE LLC, AND MODERN CAFE 

INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 58 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 101 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 21, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-16442.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 2

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32 BJ

APPEAL OF: SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS 

ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32 BJ

APPEAL OF: SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 59 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 100 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 17, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-13329.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS 

ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 60 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 102 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 17, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-13329.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 3

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS 

ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

PITTSBURGH, AND WILLIAM PEDUTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 61 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 100 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 17, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-13329.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS 

ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

PITTSBURGH, AND WILLIAM PEDUTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 102 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 17, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-13329.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018

PENNSYLVANIA RESTAURANT AND 

LODGING ASSOCIATION, STORMS 

RESTAURANT AND CATERING, LLC 

D/B/A STORMS RESTAURANT, 

LAWRENCEVILLE BREWERY, INC., 

D/B/A THE CHURCH BREW 

WORKS,1215 INCORPORATED, D/B/A 

RITA'S ITALIAN ICE, DIRT DOCTORS 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 63 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 79 CD 2016, affirming 

the Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County entered 

December 21, 2015 at No. GD 15-

16442.
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 4

CLEANING SERVICE LLC, AND 

MODERN CAFE INC.

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH

v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

PITTSBURGH, AND WILLIAM PEDUTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ARGUED: October 23, 2018

PENNSYLVANIA RESTAURANT AND 

LODGING ASSOCIATION, STORMS 

RESTAURANT AND CATERING LLC 

D/B/A STORMS RESTAURANT, 

LAWRENCEVILLE BREWERY INC. D/B/A 

THE CHURCH BREW WORKS, 1215 

INCORPORATED, D/B/A RITA'S ITALIAN 

ICE, DIRT DOCTORS CLEANING 

SERVICE LLC, AND MODERN CAFE 

INC.

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COUNCIL OF 

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, AND 

WILLIAM PEDUTO, AND SERVICE 

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 

LOCAL 32BJ

APPEAL OF: CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

PITTSBURGH, AND WILLIAM PEDUTO

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 64 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered May 

17, 2017 at No. 101 CD 2016, 

affirming the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered December 21, 2015 at No. 

GD 15-16442.

ARGUED: October 23, 2018
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 5

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: JULY 17, 2019

I agree with the general legal conclusion underlying the Majority’s decision: 

Subsection 2962(f) of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law precludes homerule municipalities, like the City of Pittsburgh (“City”), from regulating businesses and

employers, “except as expressly provided by statutes which are applicable in every part 

of this Commonwealth or which are applicable to all municipalities or to a class or classes 

of municipalities[.]” 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(f).1 I also agree with the Majority that Subsection 

2962(f) bars the City’s Safe and Secure Buildings Act (“SSBA”) because the SSBA

regulates businesses and employers by imposing “a complex and burdensome set of 

continuing obligations upon owners and employees of ‘covered properties,’” Majority 

Opinion at 36, and the City has failed to identify a statute of this Commonwealth that 

expressly provides a home-rule municipality with the authority to pass such an ordinance. 

Consequently, I join the following parts of the Majority Opinion: I., II., III., and IV.C.

I, however, respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Majority Opinion, 

particularly its conclusion that Subsection 2962(f) does not invalidate the City’s Paid Sick 

 

1 Subsection 2962(f) states, in full, as follows:

(f) Regulation of business and employment.--A municipality which 

adopts a home rule charter shall not determine duties, responsibilities or 

requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers, 

including the duty to withhold, remit or report taxes or penalties levied or 

imposed upon them or upon persons in their employment, except as 

expressly provided by statutes which are applicable in every part of this 

Commonwealth or which are applicable to all municipalities or to a class or 

classes of municipalities. This subsection shall not be construed as a 

limitation in fixing rates of taxation on permissible subjects of taxation.

53 Pa.C.S. § 2962.
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 6

Days Act (“PSDA”). As noted, Subsection 2962(f) prohibits the City from placing “duties, 

responsibilities or requirements” upon “businesses, occupations and employers.” It 

seems beyond serious controversy that the PSDA regulates businesses and employers

by requiring them to provide sick leave to their employees. Indeed, the Majority appears 

to agree. See Majority Opinion at 9 (explaining that the PSDA requires employers in the 

City to provide sick leave to employees). Thus, Subsection 2962(f) precludes the City 

from placing this requirement upon businesses and employers, unless the City can 

identify express statutory language that permits it to legislate in this manner. 

The City has failed to highlight any express statutory authority allowing it to 

mandate that businesses and employers provide employees with sick leave, and I find 

the Majority’s contrary conclusion to be unpersuasive. As to this latter statement, in 

finding that the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), 35 P.S. §§ 521.1-

521.21, contains sufficient authority to allow the City to pass the PSDA, the Majority first 

finds “that the DPCL is ambiguous with regard to whether and when municipalities may 

enact ordinances related to disease prevention and control.” Majority Opinion at 26. 

Next, the Majority utilizes principles of statutory construction to conclude that, because 

the City is within “the jurisdiction of the Allegheny County Health Department, [it] qualifies 

as a municipality which has a department of health for purposes of [the] DPCL[.]” Id. at 

29. Lastly, the Majority apparently concludes that, because the general object of the 

DPCL is disease prevention and control, it necessarily follows that the DPCL expressly 

provides home-rule municipalities with the authority to require businesses and employers 

to provide sick days to their employees. Id. at 29-36. 

In my view, the need for a circuitous, 11-page construction of the DPCL 

demonstrates the contrary result, i.e., the DPCL does not contain express statutory 

language allowing the City to mandate that businesses and employers provide their 
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 7

employees with sick days. I further note that, because the Majority finds that the DPCL 

provides the City with sufficient authority to pass the PSDA, it understandably declines to 

address whether the other statutory authority cited by the City can substantiate the validity 

of the PSDA. However, to determine if I am in concurrence with or dissent from the 

Majority’s ultimate conclusion, it is necessary for me to consider the only other statutory 

sections upon which the City relies to assert express authority for the PSDA. These 

sections can be found in the Second Class Cities Code (“SCCC”), 53 P.S. §§ 22101-

28707. 

According to the City, Section 22145 of the SCCC grants it the power to “make 

regulations to secure the general health of the inhabitants, and to remove and prevent 

nuisances.” City’s Brief at 17 (quoting 53 P.S. § 23145). The City further states that: (1) 

Section 23146 of SCCC permits it to “make all necessary orders and regulations to 

prevent the introduction of contagious or pestilential diseases into the city; to enact 

quarantine laws for that purpose, and to enforce the same within five miles of the city 

limits[,]” id. (quoting 53 P.S. § 23146); and (2) Section 23158 grants the City with authority 

to “make all such ordinances, by-laws, rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the 

Constitution and laws of this Commonwealth, as may be expedient or necessary . . . for 

the . . . maintenance of the peace, good government and welfare of the city, and its trade, 

commerce and manufacturers[,]” id. (quoting 53 P.S. § 23158). In sum, the City suggests 

that these statutory provisions expressly provide it with authority to enact the PSDA.

To the extent that the City can rely on provisions of the SCCC for purposes of 

validating its authority to pass the PSDA, I believe these statutes suffer from shortcomings similar to those of the DPCL. While the above-stated provisions of the SCCC 

may imply that second class cities have some authority to regulate businesses and 

employers in a manner to protect the general welfare of their citizens, the statutes simply 
[J-72A-2018, J-72B-2018, J-72C-2018, J-72D-2018, J-72E-2018, J-72F-2018, J-72G2018 and J-72H-2018] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 8

do not provide express statutory authority allowing home-rule municipalities to mandate 

that businesses and employers provide sick leave to their employees.

For these reasons, I conclude that the Commonwealth Court correctly determined 

that Subsection 2962(f) invalidates both the SSBA and the PSDA. In closing, I note my 

agreement with the expressions of the Chief Justice in his cogent Concurring and 

Dissenting Opinion, which I join in full. Accordingly, I would affirm the Commonwealth 

Court’s order, which affirmed that trial court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for 

judgment on the pleadings.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy join this opinion.