Case Name: Rachel L. CARR v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Civil Service Commission Petition of: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2019-01-08
Citations: 200 A.3d 435
Docket Number: No. 460 MAL 2018
Parties: Rachel L. CARR
v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Civil Service Commission
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 200
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
Rachel L. CARR
v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Civil Service Commission
Petition of: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
No. 460 MAL 2018
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
January 8, 2019
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
(1) Is the Commonwealth Court's decision in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Pickering [v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)] and its progeny, which allow a government employer to terminate an employee on the basis of their speech, even when it touches upon a matter of public concern, so long as the employer can demonstrate that an adverse effect could be reasonably foreseen?
(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by Pickering and its progeny?
(3) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sacks?