IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Deborah A. Koch, :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 40 2 C.D. 201 8
: Submitted: J u l y 1 3 , 201 8 State Civil Service Commission , : ( The Housing Authority of : Northumberland County ), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH , Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: December 7 , 201 8

T h i s matter is a petition for review filed by Deborah A. Koch (Koch),

pro se , appealing a February 16, 2018 adjudication issued by the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Civil Service Act (Act) 1 in which the
Commission ordered the Northumberland County Housing Authority (Authority) to

pay Koch $24,254.04

. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The Commission’s February 16, 2018 adjudication was issued to enforce compliance with a n adjudication that the Commission had issued on June 11, 2015. I n its June 11, 2015 decision, the Commission determined that Koch did not voluntarily resign from her position with the Authority and ordered that the

1 Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended , 71 P.S. §§ 741.1

- 741.1005.2

Authority “ reimburse [Koch] the wages and emoluments which she would have received if she had been employed by the [A uthority ] from March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015, less any wages earned and any benefits received by [Koch] under the Public Laws of Pennsylvania .” (6/11/15 Commiss ion Adjudication and Order at
11

- 12, Supplemental Reproduced Record (Supp. R.R.) at 320b

- 321b

. ) Both the Authority and Koch appealed the June 11, 2015 adjudication to this Court and those

cross

- appeals were docketed at No s . 1 142 C.D. 201 5 and 1 404 C.D. 201 5 . T he Authority contended in its appeal that the Commission erred in ruling that Koch did not voluntarily resign and in awarding her back pay from March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015. Koch in her appeal a ssert ed , inter alia , that the C o mmission erred in
de clin ing to consider claims for discrimination and for recalculation of her wages
based on the contention that her position with the Authority was misclassified and she was entitled to be paid at a higher pay grade

. (Koch Br. in No s . 1 142 C.D. 201 5
and 1 404 C.D. 201 5 at 15

- 16, 1 8

- 20 .) Koch also argued in that appeal that she was entitled to damages for stress and mental anguish and for financial losses beyond her
lost wages and emoluments for the March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 period

. ( Id.
at 16

- 17, 20

- 21.) On May 19, 2016 , this Court issued a decision rejecting both the Authority’s and Koch’s arguments and affirm ing the Commission’s June 11, 2015
decision

. Northumberland County Housing Authority v. State Civil Service Commission ( Koch ) (Koch I) , (Pa. Cmwlth. , No s . 1 142 C.D. 201 5 and 1 404 C.D.
201 5, filed May 19, 2016 ).

Follow ing this Court’s affirmance of the June 11, 2015 decision and the
return of the record to the Commission , the Authority did not comply with the Commission’s order
, and Koch requested that the Commission enforce its June 11,
2015 order . ( 2/16/18 Commission Adjudication and Order at 3

- 4 ¶¶ 7

- 1 0 , Supp. R.R.3

at 300b

- 301b

. ) The Commission held a compliance hearing on July 3 1, 201 7 , and

on February 16, 2018 , issued an a djudication holding that the Authority “ has no legitimate reason to continue its refusal to comply with this Commission's June 11,
2015 Order ” and that “ the correct amount to fairly and appropriately reimburse
Deborah Koch for the wages and emoluments which she would have received if she had been employed by the [A uthority ] from March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015, less any wages earned and any benefits received by [her] under the Public Laws of Pennsylvania, is $24,254. 04

. ” ( Id. at 9 , 12 , Supp. R.R. at 306b, 309b .) The Commission based this calculation on the fact that Koch’s gross wages for the March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 period were $24,665.65 , deducting from that amount
the $8,112.00 in unemployment benefits that Koch had received and adding in $7,700.39 in pension contribution s , accrued vacation and medical insurance. ( Id. at 9

- 11, Supp. R.R. at 306b

- 308b .) The Commission accordingly order ed the Authority

“ to pay Deborah Koch the sum of $24,254.04, less any appropriate deductions and/or required payroll withholding .” ( Id. at 12 , Supp. R.R. at 309b .) Koch has appealed
th e February 16, 2018 order to this Court. The Authority did not file any appeal
from th is order. 2

2 Our review of a decision of the Commission is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether errors of law have been committed, or whether the findings of the agency are supported by substantial evidence. Florian v. State Civil Service Commission , 832 A.2d 1171, 117 5

- 76 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)

. The Authority has filed an application to quash Koch’s appeal. This application is not based on any jurisdictional or other defect in the appeal itself. Rather, the only grounds that it asserts for quashing the appeal are the same arguments that t he Authority sets forth in its brief on the merits. Indeed, the motion to quash, filed on the same day as the Authority’s brief on the merits
, largely consists of verbatim or near verbatim repetition of the Authority’s merits brief in numbered paragraphs. While the Authority’s argument that Koch’s appeal is barred by this Court’s decision in Koch I is grounds for affirming the Commission’s February 16, 2018 order and the Court does not condone Koch’s attempts to re

litigate the issues in this case , it doe s not appear that Koch is the only party prolonging this litigation and seeking to re

- litigate issues. Although the Commission found that the Authority “has4 Before this Court, Koch does not contend that the Commission made any error with respect to her actual salary, the amount of unemployment benefits that she received or the amount of her lost pension, vacation and medical insurance benefits for the period of March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 . Rather, she argues
that the Commission erred in failing to order the Authority to compensate her for
emotional distress and financial losses other than lost wages and emoluments for the March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 period, and asserts that she has claims against the Authority for discrimination under various statutes and for reclassification of the position that she held with the Authority. All of these argument s fail because they are barred by this Court’s decisio n in Koch I and the doctrine of law of the case.

Under the doctrine of law of the case, when an issue has been raised in an appellate court and has been finally decided in a prior appeal, the appellate court
should not entertain re

- litigation of the issue or revisit that ruling i n a subsequent appeal i n the case. Peden v. Gambone Brothers Development Co. , 798 A.2d 305 , 310

- 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ; Pope & Talbot , Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 719 A.2d 1125 , 1130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) ; True Railroad Associates, L.P. v. Ames True Temper, Inc. , 152 A.3d 324 , 336

- 37 (Pa. Super

. 2016 )

. Koch raised each of the issues that she argues here in her prior appeal , and this Court

no legitimate reason ” for noncompliance with th e Commission ’ s o rder (2/16/18 Commission Adjudicati on and Order at 9 , Supp. R.R. at 30 6 b) and the Authority did not appeal that judgment, it appears that, at least at the time of the briefs in this appeal, the Authority had not yet paid Koch the $24,254.04 that it owes her. ( See Petitioner’s Br. at 55

- 56.) In addition, the Authority specifically states in its brief that it is continuing to litigate a collateral proceeding that it filed against Koch in the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas based on an alleged settlement of Koch’s claims before the Commission (Respondent’s Br. at 20 n.4), even though the Commission held that there was no such settlement in its February 16, 2018 Adjudication and Order and the Authority did not appeal that ruling. (2/16/18 Commission Adjud ication and Order at 4 ¶1, 8

- 9, Supp. R.R. at 301b, 305b

- 30 6 b

. ) T he Authority ’s application to quash this appeal is therefore denied.5

rejected each of those arguments. In Koch I , this Court discussed and exp lained why Koch’s claims for discrimination and for reclassification of her position were properly denied by the Commission. Koch I , slip op. at 7

- 8

. In addition, the Court specifically upheld the remedy ordered by the Commission of back pay less wages
earned and benefits received for the period March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 , rejecting both the Authority’s arguments and Koch’s claims for damages and compensation beyond that remedy

. Id. at 8

- 11

. Koch has not alleged or shown any exceptional circums tances , such as an intervening change in the controlling law or a substantial change in the facts out of which the litigation arises, that could permit departure from the law of the case doctrine. Her attempt s to re

- litigate her claims
for additional dama ges and other remedies beyond those awarded by the Commission, her claims of discrimination , and her reclassification claims are therefore barred and these claims cannot constitute grounds for reversal of the Commission’s February 16, 2018 adjudication. Peden , 798 A.2d at 310

- 11;
Mountain View Condominium Association v. Bomersbach , 734 A.2d 468 , 47 1 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 199 9 ) , appeal dismissed as improvidently granted , 768 A.2d 1104 (Pa. 2001) ; Pope & Talbot

, Inc. , 719 A.2d at 1130

. Moreover, Koch’s contentions that she is entitled to compensation beyond the back pay and benefits awarded by the Commission would fail even if they were considered on the merits. Under Section 952 of the Act, 3 the only

3 Added by the Act of June 26, 1989, 71 P.S. § 741.952 . Section 952(c) provides:

(c) In the case of any employe removed, furloughed, suspended, or demoted, the commission may modify or set aside the action of the appointing authority. Where appropriate, the commission may order reinstatement, with the payment of so much of the salary or wages lost, including emplo ye benefits, as the commission may in its discretion award. 71 P.S. § 741.952(c)

.6

monetary relief that the Commission can award is back pay and lost employe e benefits

. 71 P.S. § 741.952(c ); Szablowski v. State Civil Service Commission (Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) , 111 A.3d 256, 267 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015);
Florian v. State Civil Service Commission , 832 A.2d 1171 , 117 8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) ; Elias v. Department of Public Welfare, Polk Center , 511 A.2d 887 , 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) . The Commission therefore did not err in limiting its remedy to back pay and benefits for the March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 period.

Koch also argues that the Commission erred in requiring her to make “repayment” of the unemployment compensation benefits that she received. ( Petitioner’s Br. at 27, 32, 49

- 50.) Contrary to Koch’s assertion, however, the
Commission did not order her to r epay any unemployment benefits or repay any amount to anyone. Rather, the Commission reduced the amount that the Authority is required to pay her by offsetting the unemployment compensation that she received. (2/16/18 Commission Adjudication and Order at 9

- 12, Supp. R.R. at 306b

309b

. ) To the extent that Koch in this argument is challenging this offset of her unemployment benefits in calculating the back pay that the Authority owes, it fail s for the same reasons as her other arguments. The Commission ruled in its June 11, 2015 decision that “ any benefits received by [Koch] under the Public Laws of Pennsylvania ” for the March 31, 2014 to January 10, 2015 period would be deducted
in calculati ng the back pay that the Authority owed her. (6/11/15 Commission Adjudication and Order at 12, Supp. R.R. at 321b

. ) In her appeal of that decision, Koch asserted the same arguments concerning unemployment benefits that she
makes here. (Koch Br. in Nos. 1142 C.D. 2015 and 1404 C.D. 2015 at 18 .) This Court in affirming the remedy ordered by the Commission necessarily rejected Koch’s argument concerning deduction of unemployment benefits. We are therefore7

barred by the doctrine of law of the case from con sider ing that issue here. Peden , 798 A.2d at 310

- 11; Mountain View Condominium Association , 734 A.2d at 47 1 ; Pope & Talbot

, Inc. , 719 A.2d at 1130. In any event , the Commission’s deduction of unemployment benefits was proper. T he law is clear that income or funds
received by the removed employee as a result of the improper removal must be offset against the income from the civil service position in calculating a back pay award.
Elias , 511 A.2d at 893

.

Accordingly , we affirm the February 16, 2018 Commission o rder.

__________ ___________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Deborah A. Koch, :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 402 C.D. 2018
: State Civil Service Commission , : (The Housing Authority of : Northumberland County), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7 th day of December , 201 8 , the order of the State Civil
Service Commission in the above

- captioned matter is AFFIRMED

. The application of Respondent Northumberland County Housing Authority to quash the appeal is
DENIED.

__________ ___________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge