IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Frank M. Burock, :

 Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Office of the Budget :

(State Civil Service Commission), : No. 656 C.D. 2021

Respondent : Submitted: January 28, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: May 9, 2022

Frank M. Burock (Burock), pro se, petitions for review of the April 29, 

2021 order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) sustaining the 

decisions of the Office of the Budget (Employer) to impose a level-two alternative 

discipline in lieu of suspension with final warning (ADLS-2) and to remove Burock 

from regular Accountant 3 employment with Employer’s Executive Offices, and 

dismissing Burock’s appeal therefrom. Upon review, we affirm. 

I. Background

A. Disciplinary Actions by Employer

Burock worked for Employer’s Bureau of Accounting and Financial 

Management (BAFM) as an Accountant 3 from March 2012 until his termination in 
2

June 2019. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 3, Finding of Fact (F.F.) 3-4 & 6, Supplemental 

Reproduced Record (S.R.R.)1at 410b; see also id. at 15, S.R.R. at 422b. Burock

was tasked with assisting in the oversight of the fiscal and budgetary affairs of 

multiple Commonwealth agencies by reconciling and analyzing financial 

information, preparing financial statements and forecasting budgetary and cash 

needs. F.F. 7. By signature dated February 21, 2018, Burock acknowledged receipt 

of Employer’s job performance standards for his position. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 

16, S.R.R. at 423b; see also Transcript of Testimony (T.T. 2020) at 76, S.R.R. at 

78b.2 As a senior level accountant, Burock was expected to provide guidance to 

other accountants. F.F. 8.

In January 2019, Employer placed Burock on a performance 

improvement plan (January 2019 PIP) for the January 2019 to March 2019 rating 

period (first rating period). F.F. 10. The January 2019 PIP directed Burock to attend 

weekly meetings with Michelle Baker (Baker), BAFM General Accounting Manager 

with Employer’s Office of Comptroller Operations; Jamie Jerosky (Jerosky), BAFM

Financial Services Manager; and Andy Cameron (Cameron), Assistant Director of 

Employer’s General Accounting Unit, to review and discuss his progress. F.F. 9 & 

11; Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 15 nn. 4-6, S.R.R. at 422b. Specifically, Baker, Jerosky 

1 We note that we have added the letter “b” following the page numbers in our citations to 

the supplemental reproduced record (S.R.R.), although Employer failed to do so in accordance 

with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2173. See Pa.R.A.P. 2173 (providing that pages 

of the S.R.R. shall be numbered separately in Arabic figures followed by a small letter “b”). We 

further note that this is the third instance in as many appeals by Burock in which we have found it 

necessary to remind Employer of this rule.

2 The Commission heard evidence in two proceedings in October and November 2020.

The November 2020 hearing was a continuation of the October 2020 proceeding. See T.T. 2020 

at 335, S.R.R. at 337b. As the two hearing transcripts are paginated continuously in the S.R.R., 

any citations herein to the hearing transcripts shall be as to one document, designated “T.T. 2020.”
3

and Cameron addressed Burock’s failure to accurately reconcile accounts, correctly 

mark unpaid items, properly prepare the Underground Storage Tank Indemnity Fund

(USTIF) statement and independently research and resolve various other matters. 

Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 18, S.R.R. at 425b. Jerosky was also available to answer 

Burock’s questions outside the meetings. Id. The January 2019 PIP also informed 

Burock of the specific standards required to obtain a rating of “Satisfactory” in each 

of the following job rating categories: “Job Knowledge/Skills,” “Work Results,”

“Communications,” “Initiative/Problem Solving” and “Work Habits.”

3

 F.F. 12. 

Burock was required to obtain a rating of “Satisfactory” in all job categories to 

achieve an overall “Satisfactory” rating in the subsequent interim Employee 

Performance Review (EPR). F.F. 14. Further, the January 2019 PIP cautioned 

Burock that failure to achieve an overall rating of “Satisfactory” on the interim EPR 

could result in progressive discipline, up to and including removal. F.F. 15. 

In April 2019, Employer issued an interim EPR deeming Burock’s 

overall job performance during the first rating period “Unsatisfactory.” F.F. 17-18. 

Although Employer rated Burock’s job performance “Satisfactory” in the individual 

categories of “Interpersonal Relations” and “Work Habits,” Burock nevertheless 

failed to achieve “Satisfactory” ratings in the four remaining categories. F.F. at 17-

18, S.R.R. at 413b; Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 19, 426b. Employer rated Burock’s 

performance “Unsatisfactory” in the individual category of “Job Knowledge/Skills” 

on the basis of his continued failure to grasp the basic job skills necessary to 

complete assigned tasks. F.F. 19 (citing T.T. 2020 at 91-92, S.R.R. at 93b-94b; 

Certified Record (C.R.), Appointing Authority Exhibits (A.A. Ex.) 7, April 2019 

Interim EPR; C.R., A.A. Ex. 8, Weekly Meeting Minutes). Specifically, Burock 

3 We note that the individual job performance category of “Interpersonal Relations” does 

not appear in the list enumerated in finding of fact 12. See F.F. 12.
4

displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding in completing unpaid items and in 

updating the USTIF statement quarterly, resulting in missed and miscalculated 

items. Id. Burock also enlisted another accountant to analyze the “1190000 

balancing account,” even though that task was his responsibility. Id. 

In support of Burock’s “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating in the 

“Work Results” category, Employer again cited his failure to independently and 

correctly complete the USTIF statement, as well as his failure to complete the 

checklist for the Capital Facility Reports. F.F. 20 (citing T.T. 2020 at 92, S.R.R. at 

94b; C.R., A.A. Ex. 7, April 2019 Interim EPR). Regarding Burock’s 

“Unsatisfactory” rating in the individual category of “Communications,” Employer 

cited his inability to explain “everyday items” such as account reconciliations and 

the USTIF statement, as well as his argumentative behavior with management 

regarding a treasury adjustment. F.F. 21 (citing T.T. 2020 at 92, S.R.R. at 94b; C.R., 

A.A. Ex. 7, April 2019 Interim EPR). Employer also rated Burock’s job 

performance “Unsatisfactory” in the individual category of “Initiative/Problem 

Solving,” due to his failure to independently research issues and remove old 

adjustments from financial statements. F.F. 22 (citing T.T. 2020 at 92-93, S.R.R. at 

94b-95b; C.R., A.A. Ex. 7, April 2019 Interim EPR). 

On April 22, 2019, Employer issued an ADLS-2, the equivalent of a 

three-day suspension, on the basis of Burock’s unsatisfactory job performance 

during the first rating period, based on the recommendations of Baker, Jerosky and 

Cameron. F.F. 1 & 33; Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 21 (citing T.T. 2020 at 44, 93, 153, 

S.R.R. at 46b, 95b and 155b).

4

 Burock appealed, asserting that Employer’s decision 

4 Prior to Employer’s imposition of the ADLS-2, Employer had issued three disciplinary 

actions on the basis of Burock’s “Unsatisfactory” job ratings from previous rating periods—a 

February 2018 written reprimand, a July 2018 Level One (ADLS-1) and a January 2019 ADLS-1. 
5

to impose the ADLS-2 was excessive, unfair and based on a pattern of discrimination 

and retaliation5 dating back two years. See C.R., A.A. Ex. B, ADLS-2 Appeal at 1.6 

F.F. 33-36. The January 2019 ADLS-1 did not progress to an ADLS-2, owing to Burock’s 

improvement on one of the job performance rating categories. F.F. 37. This Court affirmed the 

July 2018 ADLS-1 disciplinary action in Burock v. State Civ. Service Commission (Office of the

Budget) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1865 C.D. 2019, filed May 13, 2021) (Burock I). We affirmed the 

January 2019 ADLS-1 disciplinary action in Burock v. State Civ. Service Commission (Office of 

the Budget) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 81 C.D. 2020, filed May 13, 2021) (Burock II).

5 The Civil Service Reform Act, 71 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-3304 (Act), does not provide for a 

separate statutory claim of retaliation, independent of a discrimination claim under Section 2704, 

71 Pa.C.S. § 2704. Rather, proving retaliation is one mode of establishing that an appointing 

authority engaged in discrimination by basing a personnel action on “nonmerit factors.” See 

Section 2704 of the Act, 71 Pa.C.S. § 2704; see also Beaver Cnty. v. Funk, 492 A.2d 118, 121 & 

121 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (explaining that evidence regarding financial state of county at time 

employer furloughed a probationary status caseworker, coupled with testimony as to witness’s

belief that furlough was imposed in retaliation for bargaining unit’s refusal to accept wage freeze, 

satisfied caseworker’s burden of establishing that furlough was based on nonmerit factors, and 

thus, furlough was discriminatory); see also 71 P.S. § 741.905a (prohibiting discrimination by 

officers or employees of the Commonwealth in connection with any personnel action with respect 

to the classified service on the basis of political or religious opinions or affiliations, labor union 

affiliations, race, national origin or other non-merit factors).

6 Section 3003 of the Act provides, in relevant part:

It shall be the duty of the [C]ommission . . . [t]o conduct hearings as 

follows:

(i) A regular employee in the classified service may, 

within 20 calendar days of receipt of notice from the 

appointing authority, appeal in writing to the 

[C]ommission a permanent separation, suspension 

for cause, furlough or demotion on the grounds that 

the action has been taken in the employee’s case in 

violation of the provisions of this part. Upon receipt 

of the notice of appeal, the [C]ommission shall 

promptly schedule and hold a public hearing.

(ii) A person who is aggrieved by an alleged 

violation of section 2704 (relating to prohibition of 

discrimination) may appeal in writing to the 

[C]ommission within 20 calendar days of the alleged 

violation. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the 
6

For the March 28, 2019 to May 30, 2019 rating period (second rating 

period), Employer placed Burock on another performance improvement plan (March 

2019 PIP) imposing the same performance standards and directives as the preceding 

PIP. F.F. 23. In June 2019, Employer issued an interim EPR (June 2019 interim 

EPR) based on Burock’s job performance during the second rating period. F.F. 27-

28; Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 21-22, S.R.R. at 428b-29b. Burock again received an 

overall “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating due to his failure to achieve 

“Satisfactory” ratings in any job performance category apart from “Interpersonal 

Relations” and “Work Habits.” Id. Employer rated Burock’s job performance 

“Unsatisfactory” in the individual category of “Job Knowledge/Skills” based on his 

continued failure to grasp basic job skills, such as reconciling accounts and 

completing T-accounts. F.F. 28 (citing T.T. 2020 16-07, S.R.R. at 108b-09b; C.R., 

A.A. Ex. 11, June 2019 Interim EPR). In regard to Burock’s “Unsatisfactory” rating 

in the “Work Results” category, Employer again cited his inability to correctly 

reconcile accounts, as well as his failure to complete and follow up on a “PPA Taxi 

transfer.” F.F. 29. Rating Burock’s job performance “Unsatisfactory” in the 

“Communications” category, Employer highlighted Burock’s inability to understand 

and explain unpaid items for account reconciliations, his sarcastic and 

unprofessional remarks in response to the April 2019 interim EPR and his error in 

directing an agency to send federal e-mail correspondence to an obsolete federal 

group e-mail account. F.F. 30 (citing T.T. 2020 at 107, S.R.R. at 109b); C.R., A.A. 

Ex. 11, June 2019 Interim EPR). Finally, Employer rated Burock’s job performance 

[C]ommission shall promptly schedule and hold a 

public hearing.

71 Pa.C.S. § 3003(7)(i), (ii). Section 2103 of the Act defines the term “appointing authority” to 

include “[t]he officers, board, commission, individual or group of individuals having power by 

law to make appointments in the classified service.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 2103.
7

“Unsatisfactory” in the individual category of “Initiative/Problem Solving” based on 

his failure to independently resolve unpaid items, complete basic accounting 

functions, confirm completion of an “AM document” and correctly complete debit 

and credit for the “USTIF statement FI recon backup.” F.F. 31 (citing T.T. 2020 at 

108, S.R.R. at 110b; C.R., A.A. Ex. 11, June 2019 Interim EPR).

As a result, Baker, Jerosky and Cameron recommended termination of 

Burock’s employment. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 24, S.R.R. at 431b (citing T.T. 

2020 at 46, 109 & 155-56, S.R.R. at 48b, 111b & 157b-58b). By letter dated June 

19, 2019, Employer notified Burock of its decision to remove him from Accountant 

3 employment, effective at the close of business on June 20, 2019. Id. (citing T.T. 

2020 at 110-11, S.R.R. at 112b-13b); see also C.R., A.A. Ex. D, Termination Letter

at 1. 

Burock appealed his termination, again asserting that Employer’s 

disciplinary action was excessive, unfair and based on discrimination. See C.R.,

A.A. Ex. E, Removal Appeal at 2. Burock also contended that in November 2017, 

former Assistant Director Paul Jones threatened to terminate him if he related to 

Director Mike Burns his allegation that Jones had “plugged” numbers on a USTIF 

statement.7 See id.

B. Appeals to the Commission

Employer filed a motion to combine Burock’s appeals, which the 

Commission granted. See C.R., Item No. 5, Comm’n Letter, 12/20/19. On October 

7 Burock asserts that Jones ordered “multiple plugs,” which Burock described as the 

practice of falsifying numbers to balance accounts, in a September 30, 2017 USTIF statement, and 

that Jones “was gone a few months later.” Burock’s Br. at 15 & 17.
8

14, 2020 and November 10, 2020, the Commission held hearings in which both 

Burock and Employer participated. See T.T. 2020 at 1-2 & 328-29, S.R.R. at 3b-4b 

& 330b-31b. 

1. Evidence Concerning Burock’s Job Performance

Employer’s witnesses provided the following testimony in support of 

the challenged disciplinary actions. Jerosky testified that Burock failed to verify the 

accuracy of his work with supporting documentation, solve problems independently, 

provide accurate adjustments and conduct necessary research. See Comm’n Adj., 

4/29/21 at 18, S.R.R. at 425b (citing T.T. 2020 at 41 & 43, S.R.R. at 43b & 45b). 

For instance, Burock had incorrectly marked items for deletion, mistakenly included 

accruals in financial statements, and improperly changed the “methodology” by 

including unnecessary data in reports. Id. at 19, S.R.R. at 426b (citing T.T. 2020 at 

42, S.R.R. at 44b). Further, Burock failed to timely submit assignments and did not 

complete treasury reconciliations on multiple occasions. Id. (citing T.T. 2020 at 60-

61, S.R.R. at 62b-63b). Jerosky further attested that Burock sought guidance from 

entry-level accountants when, as a senior level accountant, he was expected to 

provide assistance to other accountants. Id. at 20, S.R.R. at 427b (citing T.T. 2020 

at 45, S.R.R. at 47b). 

Baker, Burock’s primary supervisor since March 2018, testified that 

Burock failed to grasp the basic job skills necessary to complete assigned tasks, such 

as updating quarterly financial statements and calculating various items. Id. at 19, 

S.R.R. at 426b (citing T.T. 2020 at 91-92, S.R.R. at 93b-94b). For instance, Burock 

was unable to explain account reconciliations, the USTIF statement and other 

“everyday items.” Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 20, S.R.R. at 427b (quoting T.T. 2020 
9

at 92, S.R.R. at 94b). Baker attested that Burock failed to independently research 

various issues, including those pertaining to old adjustments on financial statements 

that should have been removed and unpaid amounts included in the Capital Facilities 

Report. Id. at 20-21, S.R.R. at 427b-28b (citing T.T. 2020 at 92-93, S.R.R. at 94b95b). Burock also improperly marked certain account reconciliations as complete 

based on seeking guidance from another Accountant 3 employee and failed to

independently research the matter himself as directed. Id. (citing T.T. 2020 at 107, 

S.R.R. at 109b. Baker further testified that Burock failed to correctly complete Taccounts, a “basic accounting function,” even after receiving guidance during 

several of the weekly meetings. Id. (quoting T.T. 2020 at 107, S.R.R. at 109b). 

According to Baker, Burock also failed to complete and follow up on a “PPA Taxi 

transfer” and was unable to search for transactions in Employer’s accounting system. 

Id. at 23, S.R.R. at 430b (citing T.T. 2020 at 107-08, S.R.R. at 109b-10b). 

Cameron, Burock’s “second-level supervisor,” testified that Burock 

failed to conduct necessary research and that he demonstrated an inability to 

“problem solve.” Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 18, S.R.R. at 425b (citing T.T. 2020 at 

146-48, S.R.R. at 148b-50b). Further, Burock was unable to consolidate names, 

dates and items researched in connection with treasury reconciliations. T.T. 2020 at 

150, S.R.R. at 152b (citing C.R., A.A. Ex. 8, Weekly Meeting Minutes). Cameron 

attested that despite years of meeting with Burock in order to improve his job 

performance, Burock was “constantly post[ing] something that[] [was] completely 

incorrect” when attempting to complete account reconciliations, noting that if one 

post had not been remedied, “the agency”

8 might have lost up to $4,000. T.T. 2020 

at 151, S.R.R. at 153b. Cameron further attested that during one of the weekly 

8 Cameron did not specify to which agency he was referring. See T.T. 2020 at 151, S.R.R. 

at 153b.
10

meetings, Burock attempted to take credit for a “big issue” that was in fact resolved 

by another employee. Id. at 28, S.R.R. at 435b (citing T.T. 2020 at 370-71, S.R.R. 

at 372b-73b). 

2. Evidence Concerning Alleged Discrimination

Burock provided the following testimony in support of his

discrimination claims. Burock testified that Employer’s decision to terminate his 

employment was “the culmination of a two-year process of retaliation against [him] 

by various managers and supervisors,” stemming from a disagreement in 2017 with 

his new manager, Paul Jones, regarding a USTIF financial statement, presumably 

the alleged “plugging” incident. T.T. 2020 at 175, S.R.R. at 177b; Comm’n Adj., 

4/29/21 at 24, S.R.R. at 431b (citing C.R., Burock’s Exs. 4 & 5). Burock attested 

that Jerosky questioned the “incident” upon reviewing the statement and forwarded 

the matter to Jones. T.T. 2020 at 175, S.R.R. at 177b. Burock informed Jones of his 

intention to discuss the issue involving the financial statement with Mike Burns

(Burns), the Director of the Budget and Jones’ direct supervisor. Id. at 175-76, 

S.R.R. at 177b-78b. Burock testified that Jones responded, “I don’t agree with you, 

and if you do that, you’ll be gone.” Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 24, S.R.R. at 431b 

(quoting T.T. 2020 at 176, S.R.R. at 178b). Burock asserted that his eventual 

discussion with Burns influenced Jones to rate his job performance “Unsatisfactory” 

in an EPR roughly one month later and that Jones threatened to fire him on January 

5, 2018. Id. at 25, S.R.R. at 432b (citing T.T. 2020 at 176-77 & 187, S.R.R. at 178b79b & 189b). According to Burock, the “Unsatisfactory” EPR issued by Jones 

served as the basis for all disciplinary action taken against him by Employer, up to 

and including his termination, and ultimately frustrated his applications for other 
11

positions with the Commonwealth. Id. (citing T.T. 2020 at 177-78 & 242-43, S.R.R. 

at 179b-80b & 244b-45b). Further, Burock accused Baker of being “vindictive” 

when she counseled him about his nearly exhausted leave balance. Id. (citing T.T. 

2020 at 235-36, S.R.R. at 237b-38b). Moreover, Burock attested that Employer 

acted vindictively against him by failing to nominate him for the Governor’s Award 

for Excellence. Id. (citing T.T. 2020 at 236-38, S.R.R. at 238b-40b).9

Employer’s witnesses provided the following testimony in response to 

Burock’s discrimination claims. Jerosky testified that the events from 2017 

complained of by Burock had no bearing on the challenged disciplinary actions. Id. 

at 36, S.R.R. at 443b (citing T.T. 2020 at 200-01, S.R.R. at 202b-03b). 

Regarding Burock’s assertion that his workload exceeded that of a 

female Accountant 3 who had quit prior to his removal, Baker testified that all 

accountants, including the accountant referenced by Burock, are assigned more than 

one financial statement to complete, and that she and Burock shared similar job 

duties. Id. at 29, S.R.R. at 436b (citing T.T. 2020 at 349-50, S.R.R. at 351b-52b). 

Moreover, Baker pointed out that Burock had worked for Employer for roughly 

seven years by the time the female Accountant 3 he referenced began her 

employment. Id. (citing T.T. 2020 at 172 & 350, S.R.R. at 174b & 352b).

Cameron testified that owing to his poor job performance, Burock’s 

workload was reduced and that he was not assigned the type of special projects 

typically performed by Accountant 3 employees. Id. at 29, S.R.R. at 436b (citing 

T.T. 2020 at 152, S.R.R. at 154b). Cameron also attested that he attempted to dispel 

Burock’s belief as to a conspiracy against him, so that Burock could focus on 

9 Specifically, Burock testified that a fellow “state employee,” Kevin Kayda (Kayda)

refused Burock’s request to submit his name for the Governor’s Award for Excellence. T.T. 2020 

at 238-240, S.R.R. at 240b-42b. Kayda’s title is not apparent from the record.
12

improving his job performance. Id. at 36, S.R.R. at 443b (citing T.T. 2020 at 249-

54, S.R.R. at 251b-46b).

3. The Commission’s Adjudication

On April 29, 2021, the Commission issued an adjudication affirming 

Employer’s disciplinary actions and dismissing Burock’s appeal. Comm’n Adj., 

4/29/21 at 37-38, S.R.R. at 444b-45b. The Commission deemed credible the 

testimony provided by Employer’s witnesses and cited the various exhibits proffered 

by Employer evidencing Burock’s poor job performance. Id. at 29, S.R.R. at 436b. 

In particular, the Commission noted that Burock’s unsatisfactory job performance 

was documented in the minutes of the weekly meetings held during the rating 

periods, in work e-mails and in the interim EPRs. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 18 & 

21-22, S.R.R. at 425b & 428b-29b (citing C.R., A.A. Exs. 7-8 & 11-12). Citing the 

credible testimony of Employer’s witnesses and the “detailed narratives” contained 

in the April 2019 interim EPR, the Commission determined that Burock failed to 

meet the standards set forth in the March 2019 PIP. Id. at 30, S.R.R. at 437b. 

Specifically, the Commission highlighted Burock’s lack of understanding regarding 

necessary job skills; inaccurate work product, including errors in reconciliations, 

“unpaid items,” the USTIF statement and the Capital Facility Report; failure to 

independently research and resolve issues; and inability to explain his work. Id.

(citing T.T., 2020 45 & 91-93, S.R.R. at 47b & 93b-95b; C.R., A.A. Ex. 7, April 

2019 Interim EPR). The Commission deemed unpersuasive Burock’s claim that his 

supervisors’ assessment of his job performance was erroneous. Id. at 31, S.R.R. at 

438b. The Commission, therefore, found that Employer imposed the ADLS-2 solely 

on the basis of Burock’s poor job performance during the first rating period. Id. at 
13

30, S.R.R. at 437b. Thus, the Commission concluded that Employer established 

good cause to impose the ADLS-2 on Burock. Id. at 29 & 32, S.R.R. at 436b & 

439b; Conclusion of Law (C.L.) 1.

10

 

Moreover, the Commission determined that Employer had just cause to 

terminate Burock’s employment. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 32, S.R.R. at 439b. The 

Commission cited Burock’s failure to exhibit the basic skills necessary to complete 

assigned tasks; his inability to accurately reconcile accounts; his erroneous 

completion of T-accounts, “unpaid items,” a “PPA Taxi transfer, an “AM document” 

and the “USTIF statement FI recon backup”; his failure to independently conduct 

research; and his inability to explain his work. Id. at 33, S.R.R. at 440b (citing T.T. 

2020 at 107-08, S.R.R. at 109b-10b; C.R., A.A. Ex. 11, June 2019 Interim EPR).11 

Regarding Jerosky’s recollection of Jones’ assertion that “[i]t would be better for all 

if [Burock] were not here at all,” the Commission determined that Burock failed to 

present any evidence suggesting that this purported statement motivated either the 

issuance of the ADLS-2 or his removal. Id. at 26, S.R.R. at 433b. Moreover, the 

Commission deemed unpersuasive Burock’s claim that his supervisor’s assessment 

of his job performance was erroneous. Id. at 34, S.R.R. at 441b. The Commission, 

therefore, found that Burock’s removal was based on his “Unsatisfactory” job 

performance during the second rating period. Id. Thus, the Commission concluded 

10 The Commission also deemed appropriate the level of discipline (an ADLS-2 with final 

warning) imposed by Employer on the basis of Burock’s “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating 

in the January 2019 to March 2019 EPR, noting that Employer’s disciplinary action was “the next 

step in progressive discipline” following Burock’s receipt of a written reprimand and two ADLS1 letters. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 31, S.R.R. at 438b.

11 The Commission also deemed appropriate the level of discipline imposed by Employer

in terminating Burock as the “next step in progressive discipline” following his receipt of the 

ADLS-2. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 33-34, S.R.R. at 440b-41b. 
14

that Burock’s “Unsatisfactory” job performance as documented in the April 2019 

interim EPR and supported by the credible testimony of Employer’s witnesses 

“clearly relate[d] to his competence and ability to perform his job duties, thereby 

providing just cause for removal.” Id. at 32 & 34, S.R.R. at 439b & 441b; C.L. 2. 

The Commission next addressed Burock’s allegations of 

discrimination. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 35, S.R.R. at 442b. The Commission 

found that Burock failed to provide any evidence as to his age or in support of his 

allegation that Employer treated younger employees differently from similarly 

situated older employees. Id. 

Further, the Commission determined that Burock failed to substantiate 

his claim that he received a heavier workload than a female Accountant 3. Comm’n 

Adj., 4/29/21 at 35, S.R.R. at 442b. The Commission credited Baker’s testimony 

that Burock and the female Accountant 3 shared similar duties, even though she was 

in her first year of employment as an Accountant 3 with Employer and Burock was 

in his seventh. Id. Moreover, the Commission cited Cameron’s credible testimony 

that Employer reduced Burock’s workload due to his poor job performance. Id. at 

35-36, S.R.R. at 442b-43b. 

In regard to Burock’s claims of retaliation and hostile work 

environment stemming from alleged incidents dating back to 2017, the Commission 

referenced Jerosky’s credible testimony that these events had no bearing on the 

challenged disciplinary actions, as well as Cameron’s testimony that he attempted to 

allay Burock’s concerns regarding an alleged conspiracy against him so that Burock 

could focus on improving his job performance. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 36, S.R.R. 

at 443b. Addressing Jerosky’s recollection of Jones’ purported statement that “[i]t 

would be better for all if [Burock] were not here at all,” the Commission determined 
15

that Burock failed to present any evidence suggesting that this statement motivated 

either the issuance of the ADLS-2 or his removal. Id. at 26, S.R.R. at 433b. 

The Commission, therefore, determined that Employer presented 

credible evidence establishing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rating 

Burock’s job performance “Unsatisfactory” in both interim EPRs. Comm’n Adj., 

4/29/21 at 26, S.R.R. at 433b. Thus, the Commission concluded that Burock failed 

to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 35, S.R.R. at 442b.

II. Discussion

Before this Court,12 Burock argues that the Commission erred in 

dismissing his appeals, because Employer has not established the requisite cause to 

support the challenged disciplinary actions. See Burock’s Br. at 21-22. Burock 

asserts that the April 29, 2021 adjudication “is the Commission’s opinion only and 

it is incorrect.” Id. at 14-15. Burock maintains that he completed his work in a 

timely manner during the rating periods “with probably 99% of it to [his] 

supervisor’s liking.” Id. at 13. Further, Burock contends that he submitted into 

evidence several e-mail threads which “directly contradict” his negative 

performance reviews by showing that he submitted his work “with hardly a 

comment” from either Baker, Cameron or Burns. Id. at 13 & 18. Burock asserts 

12 Our scope of review of a determination of the Commission is limited to determining 

whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law has been committed, or necessary 

findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. Williams v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 

811 A.2d 1090, 1092 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); see also Section 704 of the Administrative Agency 

Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. “[A] court reviewing the penalty imposed on an employee [within the 

framework of the Civil Service Act] is not to substitute its determination for that of the employer. 

Rather, the court is merely to make certain that just cause exists and that the appointing authority 

did not abuse its discretion.” Zuckerkandel v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 415 A.2d 1010, 1011 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1980). 
16

that e-mails were the “only way” work was reviewed, as “everything” was confirmed 

by managers through e-mail. Id. at 18. Burock maintains that he timely prepared 

USTIF statements, but that Jones’ lengthy review of one of these statements resulted 

in tardy transmittal to the client, and that Burock received an interim EPR rating his 

job performance “Unsatisfactory” within one month of this “incident.” Id. at 16. 

Burock also points out that he had performed the same job for roughly six years 

before receiving his first “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating. Id. at 15.13 

Burock contends that the interim EPR comments were “petty[,] nitpicking, 

duplicative, vindictive and purely retaliatory in nature.” Id. at 13-14. Burock asserts 

that “[t]hey can make anything up on an EPR if they want to discredit someone and 

they did.” Id.

Further, Burock contends any claim that he could not perform his job 

is “ludicrous,” and that Employer’s disciplinary actions were motivated by 

retaliation. Id. Specifically, Burock asserts that Employer retaliated against him 

when Brian Seno (Seno)14 influenced Burock’s manager to issue a “biased EPR” in 

July 2017 after learning that Burock had applied for a lateral position in the same 

division the previous year, though the EPR was ultimately discarded by Burns. Id.

at 14-15. Burock maintains that Jones improperly placed Burock on a performance 

improvement plan on the basis of the discarded EPR. Id. at 15.15 Burock also 

contends that Employer’s retaliation was motivated by his decision to notify Burns 

13 Burock received an overall “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating in July 2018. See 

Burock I, slip op. at 3. 

14 Burock alleges in his appellate brief that Seno and Jones left in March of 2018. See 

Burock’s Br. at 8.

15 Burock fails to reference a particular PIP. See Burock’s Br. at 15.
17

of an instance of fraud committed by Jones related to the alleged “plugging” 

incident. Id. at 14. Highlighting Jones’ purported pronouncement that “[i]t would 

be better for all if [Burock] were not here at all,” Burock criticizes the Commission’s 

determination that this declaration by Jones did not motivate Employer’s imposition

of the challenged disciplinary actions. Id. at 13 (citing Comm’n Adj, 4/29/21 at 26, 

S.R.R. at 433b). Further, Burock asserts that Jones made this revealing statement 

just one month after Burock reported him for fraud. See id. Burock also maintains 

that Employer retaliated against him on the basis of his decision to report Jones and 

Burns to OIG,16 Budget Secretary Randy Albright and Auditor General Eugene 

DePasquale; to report an e-mail sent by Seno to 50 employees which openly

discussed the mental health condition of a colleague; and to report Baker for 

permitting the misuse of Commonwealth property by Danashree Chitnis (Chitnis). 

Id. at 14-16. Burock asserts that the Commission failed to accord proper weight to 

the evidence he presented and, further, that “[t]he Commission never even 

considered the possibility of retaliation in their [sic] discussion.” Id. at 14. 

Further, Burock alleges that Baker favored Chitnis, a new female 

Accountant 3 employee, by permitting her to make personal calls at work for 

approximately two hours per day during the first six months of her employment. Id. 

at 17-18. Burock also alleges that Employer favored Chitnis by assigning her “only 

one specific job to do,” as compared with the “25 identifiable tasks the typical 

Accountant 3 is responsible for.” Id. at 10.17 Burock further asserts that after Chitnis 

16 Burock presumably intends to reference the Office of the Inspector General. See 

Burock’s Br. at 14. 

17 Burock points out that the Commission refused to accept as evidence “a very detailed 

spreadsheet he had prepared comparing [his] workload” with that of Chitnis. See Burock’s Br. at 

10. At the November 10, 2020 hearing, the Commission permitted Burock to question Baker 
18

left in October 2018, her successor, Julia Ridge (whom he alleges was also younger 

than he), received a similarly “easy” workload. Id. at 10. Burock maintains that his 

workload remained substantially the same over the course of his employment, with 

the exception of roughly six months in 2016 when it tripled due to turnover. Id. at 

14. Burock contends that Baker was “furious” and issued him a “horrible EPR” 

several weeks after he reported the alleged misconduct to Cameron. Id. at 17. 

Asserting that he “laid out all the reasons his supervisors could and did 

go after him with a pure hatred and vengeance,” Burock “urge[s] the [C]ourt to 

please read [his] responses (part of the record) to every point brought up in the 

interim EPRs used to arrive at [his] ADLS[-]2 and removal.” Id. at 15 & 18. Burock 

contends that the Commission’s “view” that he failed to present evidence in support 

of his claims is “false,” asserting that the Commission “just doesn’t want to see the 

evidence.” Id. at 19. Further, Burock alleges that he asked eight current Office of 

the Budget employees to testify on his behalf, but that all refused, citing the hostility 

in the office and fears of repercussions. Id. Burock also asserts that Baker perjured 

regarding the workload comparison spreadsheet. See T.T. 2020 at 347-50, S.R.R. at 349b-52b. 

However, the Commission refused to enter the spreadsheet into the record on the basis that Burock 

failed identify the sources of information upon which he relied in drafting the document or to 

corroborate the veracity of the allegations contained therein. See id. at 213-14 & 376-79, S.R.R. 

at 215b-16b & 378b-81b. The Commission further noted that Burock could have questioned 

Chitnis at the hearing regarding her assignments in order to permit comparison of their respective 

workloads. See id. at 378, S.R.R. at 380b. 

Nevertheless, Burock attached the spreadsheet and several other extra-record documents

to his appellate brief. See Burock’s Br., Attachments marked “Ex. 12,” “AP-21” & “AP-32.” “In 

civil service cases, the Commission is the sole fact-finder.” Perry v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n 

(Dep’t of Lab. & Indus.), 38 A.3d 942, 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); see also Shade v. Civ. Serv. 

Comm’n (Pa. Dep’t of Transp.), 749 A.2d 1054, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (“It is axiomatic that 

the Commission, not this Court, has the power to resolve questions of credibility and to weigh the 

evidence.”). Thus, this Court will not consider the extra-record documents proffered by Burock. 
19

herself when he questioned her at the hearing.18 Id. Emphasizing his status as a pro 

se litigant, Burock maintains that he “cannot compete with the Budget Office 

machine.” Id. at 20.19 Burock, therefore, requests that this Court reverse the April 

29, 2021 adjudication of the Commission. Id. at 22.20 

A. Good Cause to Impose the ADLS-2

Section 2603 of the Civil Service Reform Act (Act) provides, in 

relevant part:

(a) Right to suspend.--The following apply:

18 Burock fails to specify which portions of Baker’s testimony allegedly constituted

perjury. See Baker’s Br. at 19. 

19 Burock cites Section 803 of the former Civil Service Act, 71 P.S. § 741.803, in 

connection with his claim that Employer lacked good cause to impose the ADLS-2. See Burock’s 

Br. at 13. However, effective March 28, 2019, the Act of June 28, 2018, P.L. 460, No. 71, repealed 

and replaced the Civil Service Act. Employer issued the first disciplinary action at issue in the 

present matter on April 22, 2019. Section 2603 of the Act provides that “[e]mployees may only 

be suspended for good cause.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 2603(c).

20 Burock also requests that this Court “nullif[y]” its orders issued in Burock I and Burock 

II, affirming separate adjudications of the Commission sustaining Employer’s previous 

disciplinary actions against Burock. Burock’s Br. at 22. Burock maintains that the disciplinary 

actions at issue in those matters exhibited “the same Office of the Budget and State Civil Service 

Commission biases against [him] running through them.” Id. As noted by the Commission, 

Employer’s decisions to impose the ADLS-2 and terminate Burock constituted the next step in 

progressive discipline. See Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 31-34, S.R.R. at 438b-41b. Burock’s request 

to overturn orders of this Court sustaining the disciplinary actions previously imposed by 

Employer against Burock constitutes an impermissible attempt to collaterally attack those orders. 

See Moeller v. Washington Cnty., 44 A.2d 252, 254 (Pa. 1945) (a judgment, order or decree 

rendered by a court having jurisdiction is not open to collateral attack in any other proceeding); 

E.O. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2750 C.D. 2010, filed Sept. 14, 2011), slip op. at 

4 n.5 (explaining that the collateral attack doctrine, which is related to collateral estoppel and res 

judicata, “precludes a litigant from seeking to obtain a favorable outcome in a proceeding through 

the use of a challenge to a previous related judicial determination”); see also Commonwealth Court 

Internal Operating Procedure Section 414(a), 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a) (providing that this Court’s 

unreported memorandum opinions issued after January 15, 2008 may be cited for persuasive 

value).
20

(1) An appointing authority may, for 

disciplinary purposes, suspend without pay 

an employee holding a position in the 

classified service.

. . . 

(c) Good cause.--Employees may only be suspended for 

good cause.

71 Pa.C.S. § 2603(a)-(c). The appointing authority bears the burden of proving that 

it had good cause to suspend a civil service employee. Toland v. State Corr. Inst. at 

Graterford, Bureau of Corr., 506 A.2d 504, 506 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). “It is well 

established that one’s relationship with the classified service turns upon a merit 

concept.” Kanjorski v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 403 A.2d 631, 632 (Pa. 1979). 

Accordingly, “[t]his Court has held that good cause must relate to an employee’s 

competence and ability to perform his or her job duties, . . . or must result from 

conduct that hampers or frustrates the execution of the employee’s 

duties.” Bruggeman v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Corr. SCI-Huntingdon), 

769 A.2d 549, 552 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (citations omitted); see also Kanjorski, 403 

A.2d at 632-33 (holding that merit criteria for evaluating disciplinary suspensions 

“must be job-related and in some rational and logical manner touch upon 

competency and ability”).

We discern no error in the Commission’s determination that Employer 

demonstrated good cause to impose the ADLS-2 on the basis of Burock’s 

unsatisfactory job performance during the first rating period. As related at length

above, Employer provided ample documentary evidence, in addition to the credible 

testimony of supervisors who met regularly with Burock and reviewed his work,

establishing that Burock repeatedly failed to meet basic job performance standards 
21

even after extensive assistance and instruction from Employer. Accord Shade v. Pa. 

State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Pa. Dep’t of Transp.), 749 A.2d 1054, 1055-58 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2000) (holding that appointing authority had good cause to impose on 

employee an ADLS carrying the weight of a five-day suspension, where employee 

failed repeatedly to achieve a “Satisfactory” overall rating in his job performance 

review, despite exhibiting improvement in certain individual job performance 

categories, and where employer had provided employee with a work plan outlining 

15 performance standards and conducted quarterly review sessions with employee 

to discuss his unsatisfactory job performance).

Nevertheless, Burock points out that he performed his job for roughly 

six years before receiving his first “Unsatisfactory” job performance rating. See

Burock’s Br. at 15. However, Burock’s assertion regarding his performance 

between 2012 and 2018 does not bear upon his unsatisfactory job performance 

during the first rating period, which gave rise to the challenged ADLS-2. 

Burock also contends that the Commission failed to accord sufficient

weight to the evidence he presented at the hearing. See Burock’s Brief at 14.

21

 “It 

is axiomatic that the Commission, not this Court, has the power to resolve questions 

of credibility and to weigh the evidence.” Shade, 749 A.2d at 1056 (citing 

Toland, 506 A.2d at 506); see also Perry v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Lab. 

& Indus.), 38 A.3d 942, 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (stating that “[i]n civil service cases, 

21 We note that Burock fails to direct the Court to any particular portion of the record in 

support of his arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (“If reference is made to the pleadings, evidence, 

charge, opinion or order, or any other matter appearing in the record, the argument must set forth, 

in immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the place in the record 

where the matter referred to appears.”). We, therefore, decline Burock’s invitation for the Court 

to search for “[his] responses (part of the record) to every point brought up in the interim EPRs 

used to arrive at [his] ADLS[-]2 and removal.” Burock’s Br. at 18. See Commonwealth v. Beshore, 

916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining that an appellate court will not “scour the 

record to find evidence to support an argument”).
22

the Commission is the sole fact-finder”). “As such, determinations as to witness 

credibility and resolution of evidentiary conflicts are within the Commission’s sole 

province, and we will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment . . . .” 

Perry, 38 A.3d at 948. Further, “[t]he fact that the Commission gave greater weight 

to the testimony of [Burock’s] supervisor[s] than to the testimony of [Burock] is not 

an error or abuse of the Commission’s fact-finding function.” Shade, 749 A.2d at 

1056. 

Moreover, Burock does not dispute any particular credibility 

determination of the Commission, instead levying general accusations regarding the 

veracity and the motives of Employer’s witnesses in an effort to undermine their 

testimony. See Shade, 749 A.2d at 1056 (rejecting disciplined employee’s reliance

“on his own version of the facts as opposed to the findings as made by the 

Commission based upon its credibility determination” even though “[i]t [was] clear 

from the Commission’s decision that it found credible the testimony from the 

witnesses of the [appointing authority], not [the employee’s] testimony, where there 

was a conflict”). Accordingly, we will not disturb the Commission’s credibility 

findings. 

B. Just Cause for Removal

“No regular employee in the classified service may be removed, except 

for just cause.” Section 2607 of the Act, 71 Pa.C.S. § 2607. “In an appeal from the 

removal of a regular status employee, the appointing authority has the burden of 

establishing just cause for its action.” Mihok v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 607 A.2d 

846, 848 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). Just cause for removal “must be merit-related and the 
23

criteria must touch upon competency and ability in some rational and logical 

manner.” Woods v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 912 A.2d 803, 808 (Pa. 2006).

The Commission concluded that Employer’s provision of documentary 

evidence and credible testimony demonstrating Burock’s repeated failure to improve 

his unsatisfactory job performance established just cause for his termination, further 

noting that termination constituted the next step in progressive discipline. Comm’n 

Adj., 4/29/21 at 32-34, S.R.R. at 439b-41b. We agree. The January 2019 PIP 

cautioned Burock that failure to achieve an overall rating of “Satisfactory” in the 

next interim EPR could result in progressive discipline, up to and including removal. 

F.F. 15. However, despite exhibiting improvement in one job performance category, 

Burock again received an “Unsatisfactory” overall job performance rating in the 

June 2019 interim EPR. We, therefore, agree with the Commission that Employer 

demonstrated just cause to terminate Burock’s employment. See Harper v. Dep’t of 

Pub. Welfare, 553 A.2d 521, 524-25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (concluding that substantial 

evidence supported employer’s just cause to remove employee, where employee 

failed to demonstrate significant improvement despite meeting regularly with his 

supervisor, receiving specific guidance and being afforded multiple opportunities for 

improvement).

C. Discrimination 

“An officer or employee of the Commonwealth may not discriminate 

against an individual in recruitment, examination, appointment, training, promotion, 

retention or any other personnel action with respect to the classified service because 

of race, gender, religion, disability or political, partisan or labor union affiliation or 
24

other nonmerit factors.” Section 2704 of the Act, 71 Pa.C.S. § 2704.

22

 “Although 

the burden of proof for establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination 

is not an onerous one, the burden nevertheless rests with the employee alleging the 

discrimination.” Bruggeman, 769 A.2d at 553; see also Pronko v. Dep’t of Revenue, 

539 A.2d 456, 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (citing 4 Pa. Code § 105.16).23 Satisfying 

this burden requires the production of affirmative evidence in support of the 

allegation; the Commission may not simply infer discrimination. Id. 

In traditional discrimination cases,24 the burden is on the petitioner to 

make out a prima facie case of discrimination by producing sufficient evidence that,

if believed and otherwise unexplained, indicates that more likely than not 

discrimination has occurred. Dep’t of Health v. Nwogwugwu, 594 A.2d 847, 849 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). When claiming disparate treatment, a complainant must 

demonstrate that he was treated differently from other employees similarly situated. 

Id. If the complainant meets this burden, the burden of production shifts to the 

employer to advance a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the disciplinary 

22 Section 2603(b) of the Act also prohibits an appointing authority from discriminating 

against an employee holding a position in the classified service by issuing a suspension without 

pay on the basis of “race, gender, religion, disability or political, partisan or labor union affiliation 

or any other nonmerit factor.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 2603(b). 

23 Section 105.16 of the Commission’s regulations provides, in relevant part:

The appellant shall go forward to establish the charge or charges of 

discrimination. If at the conclusion of this presentation, the 

appellant has, in the opinion of the Commission, established a prima 

facie case, the appointing authority shall then be afforded the 

opportunity to reply to the charges.

4 Pa. Code § 105.16.

24 “‘Traditional discrimination’ has been held to encompass only those claims of 

discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or the like.” Dep’t of Health v. Nwogwugwu, 

594 A.2d 847, 849 n.4 (1991).
25

action. Id. at 850. However, an employer is not required, as part of its burden, to 

persuade the Commission that it was actually motivated by the proffered reason or 

reasons. Henderson v. Off. of the Budget, 560 A.2d 859, 864 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). 

All that is required is that the employer’s evidence raise a genuine issue of fact as to 

whether it discriminated against the complainant. Id. If an employer succeeds in 

rebutting the presumption of discrimination raised by the complainant’s prima facie

case, the complainant must then demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the employer’s articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination. Wei 

v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 961 A.2d 254, 259-60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 

Burock essentially asserts that Employer discriminated against him on 

the basis of age and gender by taking disciplinary action against him while 

permitting a younger, female employee to carry a lighter workload and to make

personal calls during work hours. We disagree.

As noted by the Commission, Burock provided no evidence as to his 

age or the claimed disparate treatment on the basis of age. See Comm’n Adj., 

4/29/21 at 35, S.R.R. at 442b. Regardless, Burock fails to establish that he was 

similarly situated to either Chitnis or Ridge, the allegedly younger and less 

experienced female employees. See id.25 Although Burock maintains that 

Employer’s motivation for imposing the challenged disciplinary actions was 

discriminatory, the Commission credited the testimony of Employer’s witnesses 

detailing Burock’s inadequate job performance. See Perry, 38 A.3d at 958 

(affirming a decision of the Commission sustaining an employer’s disciplinary 

25 Further, undermining his assertion that Employer discriminated against him on the basis 

of gender by delegating fewer assignments to female Accountant 3 employees, as noted above,

Employer in fact reduced Burock’s workload during both rating periods by restricting his 

involvement with the type of special projects typically completed by Accountant 3 employees due 

to his poor job performance. See F.F. 32; T.T. 2020 at 152, S.R.R. at 154b.
26

action, reasoning that “[a]s fact-finder, the Commission opted to believe [the 

employer’s] explanation regarding the motivation for [the manager’s] removal”);

Tate-Burns v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1304 C.D. 2015, filed 

Nov. 10, 2016), slip op. at 5-6 & 10-11 (noting that “[i]nsofar as [employee’s] 

testimony differed from [the a]ppointing [a]uthority’s witnesses, the Commission 

found the latter more credible”). Further, Burock’s assertion that he had performed 

the same job for roughly six years before receiving his first “Unsatisfactory” job 

performance rating is of no moment. See Tate-Burns, slip op. at 5-6 & 10-11

(affirming the Commission’s determination that employer suspended employee 

solely for the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason that she failed to comply with 

its time and attendance procedures, and not in retaliation for reporting her 

supervisor’s alleged misconduct, notwithstanding employee’s assertions that her 

suspension constituted the first discipline imposed by employer in 24 years).

We deem baseless Burock’s contention that the Commission “never 

even considered the possibility of retaliation in their [sic] discussion.” See Burock’s 

Br. at 14. The Commission determined that Burock failed to establish a prima facie

case of retaliatory discrimination, specifically crediting Jerosky’s testimony that the 

alleged events from 2017 identified by Burock did not influence the challenged 

disciplinary actions. Comm’n Adj., 4/29/21 at 35-36, S.R.R. at 442b-43b. 

Regarding Jerosky’s recollection of Jones’ purported assertion that “[i]t would be 

better for all if [Burock] were not here at all,” the Commission concluded that 

Burock failed to present any evidence suggesting that this purported statement 

motivated either the issuance of the ADLS-2 or his removal. Id. at 26, S.R.R. at 

433b. Moreover, the Commission concluded that Burock’s poor job performance 

constituted a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment 
27

actions. See Id. at 36, S.R.R. at 443b. See Perry, 38 A.3d at 957-58 (affirming the 

Commission’s rejection of complainant’s claim that his suspension and discharge 

were motivated by discrimination in retaliation for providing testimony that was 

adverse to employer’s position in a separate civil service proceeding, where

employer’s credible testimony established that disciplinary actions were in fact 

based on the legitimate non-discriminatory reason). 

Further, we note that, apart from citing a defunct provision of the 

former Civil Service Act, Burock fails to provide any supporting legal authority in 

his appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“[t]he argument shall be divided into as 

many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each 

part . . . the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation 

of authorities as are deemed pertinent”) (emphasis added); Commonwealth of Pa. v. 

Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (2009) (internal citations omitted) (“where an appellate 

brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or 

fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that 

claim is waived”) (emphasis added); see also Shade, 749 A.2d at 1057 (stating that 

a disciplined civil service employee failed to fully develop his argument by generally 

asserting without elaboration that his employer failed to assess each job rating factor 

in relation to established standards in evaluating his job performance). 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Commission’s determination 

that Employer satisfied its burden of establishing good cause to impose the ADLS2 and just cause to terminate Burock on the basis of his unsatisfactory job 
28

performance and that Burock failed to provide evidence demonstrating that 

Employer’s disciplinary actions were discriminatory. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Frank M. Burock, :

 Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Office of the Budget :

(State Civil Service Commission), : No. 656 C.D. 2021

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2022, the April 29, 2021 adjudication 

of the State Civil Service Commission is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge