IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jennifer Beuchat, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 988 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: December 1, 2017

State Civil Service Commission :

(Department of Corrections), :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: June 13, 2018

Jennifer Beuchat (Beuchat) petitions for review of an order of the State 

Civil Service Commission (Civil Service Commission), which dismissed her appeal 

challenging her non-selection for a promotion to Corrections Officer 4 with the 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department). The Civil Service 

Commission denied Beuchat’s appeal as untimely on the basis that it was not filed 

within 20 days of the date that Beuchat became aware of the challenged action. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Beuchat served as a corrections officer with the Department at the State 

Correctional Institution at Muncy (SCI-Muncy). Beuchat applied for a promotion 

to the position of “Corrections Officer 4”—a position Beuchat also refers to as 
2

“Captain” and “Shift Commander”—but the Department notified her on 

April 11, 2017 that it did not select her. The April 11, 2017 notification of 

non-selection included the name of the successful candidate. On April 18, 2017, 

Beuchat spoke with the major at SCI-Muncy with whom she interviewed for the 

position. According to Beuchat, the major informed her that she was not selected 

for reasons such as biting her fingernails and appearing apathetic during the 

interview. (Petitioner’s Br. at 2.) At that time, 13 days remained for Beuchat to file 

a timely appeal request form with the Civil Service Commission. Instead, she filed 

her appeal request form on May 3, 2017.

By order dated June 21, 2017, the Civil Service Commission denied 

Beuchat’s appeal on the ground that she did not file her appeal request within 20 days 

of the notification of the non-promotion as required by the Civil Service Act (Act)1

and reiterated by the Civil Service Commission rules.

2

 (Certified Record (C.R.), 

Item No. 2.) This appeal followed.

On appeal,3 Beuchat argues that the Civil Service Commission erred by 

dismissing her appeal as untimely. She alleges that she filed the appeal request form 

within 20 days of her discovering the discrimination. More specifically, Beuchat 

 

1 Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. §§ 741.1-.1005. 

2 Specifically, the Civil Service Commission cited Rule 105.12(a)(3), which provides: 

(a) Requests for hearings shall be:

. . . 

(3) Received or postmarked not more than 20 calendar days after the 

employee receives notice of the challenged personnel action.

4 Pa. Code § 105.12(a)(3).

3 Our review of a decision of the Civil Service Commission is limited to whether 

constitutional rights have been violated, whether errors of law have been committed, and whether 

the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence. Woods v. State Civil Serv. 

Comm’n, 912 A.2d 803, 808 (Pa. 2006).
3

contends that it was not until April 18, 2017, when she spoke with the major at 

SCI-Muncy, that she learned that she was not selected for the promotion due to 

non-merit factors, and, therefore, the 20-day limit should have started to run on that 

date. Beuchat further argues that 20 days is an unreasonable timeframe for a person 

to determine that discrimination has occurred. Beuchat further contends that a 

person suspecting discrimination would first need to acquire detailed information 

about the successful candidate: “the other candidate’s test score, employee 

performance reports, prior discipline, overall service record (including time and 

attendance), prior discipline, resume or qualifications, and prior personnel actions 

(demotions, reinstatements, etc.).” (Petitioner’s Br. at 1.) 

As part of her timeliness argument, Beuchat contends that her 

non-promotion was due to discrimination,4 which is prohibited by Section 905.1 of 

the Act.

5

 Section 951(b) of the Act, however, provides: 

 

4 Beuchat’s arguments appear to pertain to both the April 11, 2017 notification of 

non-selection as well as comparisons to previously successful candidates for Corrections Officer 4. 

Beuchat posits that successful candidates for Corrections Officer 4 were less qualified than her 

because: (1) she had higher test scores; (2) she had more experience as Acting Shift Commander 

(temporarily having the responsibility of Corrections Officer 4); and (3) she had fewer incidents 

of discipline on her record. She provides several reasons why she believes she was not selected 

for the promotion, despite her qualifications. She contends that the successful candidate was

selected over her because Beuchat had reported her supervisor for sexually inappropriate behavior 

with a coworker. Beuchat also contends that she was not selected because the misconduct report 

that she lodged against her supervisor earned her a reputation as a “whiny” employee, a personality 

trait, and Beuchat argues that the Act prohibits basing an employment decision on a candidate’s 

reputation for being “whiny.” (Petitioner’s Br. at 5.) Beuchat argues that, aside from reporting 

sexual harassment and her reputation for being whiny, “all other factors were relatively equal.” 

(Id.)

5 Added by the Act of August 27, 1963, P.L. 1257, 71 P.S. § 741.905a. Section 905.1 of 

the Act provides: 

No officer or employe of the Commonwealth shall discriminate against any person 

in recruitment, examination, appointment, training, promotion, retention or any 
4

Any person who is aggrieved by an alleged violation of 

Section 905.1 of this act[, relating to prohibition of 

discrimination,] may appeal in writing to the commission 

within twenty calendar days of the alleged violation. 

Upon receipt of such notice of appeal, the commission 

shall promptly schedule and hold a public hearing.

Here, Beuchat appealed the decision of the Department on May 3, 2017, more 

than 20 days after notification of her non-selection on April 11, 2017. Thus, her 

appeal is untimely under Section 951(b) of the Act.

That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we determined in Butler 

v. State Civil Service Commission, 426 A.2d 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), that the 

discovery rule may be applied to toll the 20-day period for appeals under the Act. In 

Butler, the Department of Health denied three female nurses a promotion to an 

administrative position. Over a month after notification of the non-selection, the 

three female nurses learned the identity of the successful candidate for the promotion

and that he was the only male applicant. The Civil Service Commission dismissed 

the appeals as untimely because the female nurses filed their appeals of the decision 

more than 20 days after the notification of non-selection. This Court reversed and 

instead held that the 20-day limit was tolled until the date that the female nurses 

learned the identity of the successful applicant. We explained that an unsuccessful 

applicant must know the identity of the successful candidate before suspecting that 

the employer’s decision was not based on merit.

Therein lies the difference between the instant case and Butler. Here, 

the April 11, 2017 notification to Beuchat of her non-selection included the name of 

the successful applicant. Beuchat acknowledged as much in her petition for review. 

 

other personnel action with respect to the classified service because of political or 

religious opinions or affiliations because of labor union affiliations or because of 

race, national origin or other non-merit factors.
5

(See Pet. at ¶ 11.) Unlike the female nurses in Butler, who did not know the identity 

of the successful applicant, Beuchat possessed the requisite knowledge to suspect 

that she was the victim of discrimination (if that wasthe case). She knew the identity 

of the successful applicant as of April 11, 2017, but she did not appeal to the Civil 

Service Commission within 20 days as required by Section 951(b) of the Act. 

Beuchat provides no authority to support the contention that she did not need to file 

her appeal until 20 days after acquiring a more detailed employment history of the 

successful candidate.

The distinction between this case and Butler is bolstered by the reason 

for the alleged discrimination in each case. Here, Beuchat states that she reported 

alleged inappropriate behavior by her supervisor, and, as a result, she was reputed to 

be “whiny.” Beuchat had knowledge of those circumstances prior to the 

April 18, 2017 meeting with the major at SCI-Muncy. Thus, the April 18, 2017 

meeting, wherein the major identified her demeanor during the interview as her 

reason for non-selection, did not provide the basis for Beuchat’s theory of 

discrimination. The facts in this case are in stark contrast to the inferred 

discriminatory grounds in Butler—i.e., discrimination based on the gender of the 

three female nurses. The female nurses had no reason to suspect they were not 

promoted due to their gender until they discovered the identity of the successful 

applicant and that he was also the only male applicant, which occurred well after the 

deadline for an appeal.

6

 Beuchat, on the other hand, knew of her own reputation and 

her history of reporting her supervisor at the time of her non-selection, well in 

 

6 Beuchat was not required to prove her entire case within 20 days; rather, she was required 

to initiate her case within 20 days. The filing of an appeal request form serves to begin the process 

of contesting a promotion decision and is followed by a hearing for the purpose of obtaining 

information on the alleged discrimination. 
6

advance of the appeal deadline. Moreover, to the extent Beuchat argues that she was 

not hired due to what Beuchat refers to as non-merit factors or personality traits—

i.e., her demeanor in the interview, specifically appearing apathetic and biting her 

nails—a candidate alleging that such consideration constituted discrimination must 

do so within the allotted 20 days.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Civil Service Commission. 

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jennifer Beuchat, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 988 C.D. 2017

:

State Civil Service Commission :

(Department of Corrections), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2018, the order of the State Civil 

Service Commission is hereby AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge