Court Opinion

ID: 9364388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 15:07:02.227474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:37.615024
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Leslie Dubich,                           :
                   Petitioner            :
                                         :
             v.                          :
                                         :
Department of Military and               :
Veterans Affairs (State Civil            :
Service Commission),                     :   No. 1144 C.D. 2021
                   Respondent            :   Submitted: September 9, 2022

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                          FILED: January 19, 2023

             Leslie Dubich (Dubich), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the
State Civil Service Commission’s (SCSC) September 23, 2021 order dismissing
Dubich’s appeal and sustaining the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs’
(Appointing Authority) removal of Dubich from her regular employment as a
licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.). Essentially, Dubich presents three issues for this
Court’s review: (1) whether the Appointing Authority and the SCSC violated
Dubich’s due process rights; (2) whether substantial evidence supports the SCSC’s
determination that Dubich violated the Appointing Authority’s Standards of
Conduct and Work Rules (Work Rules), including the Workplace Violence and
Bullying (Workplace Violence) Prevention Policy (Workplace Violence Policy),
and the Southwestern Veterans Center’s (SWVC) Nursing Policies and Procedures
(Nursing Procedures); and (3) whether the Appointing Authority’s employment
termination based, inter alia, on Dubich’s social media post, was consistent with the
Appointing Authority’s Work Rules, and whether such Appointing Authority action
violated Dubich’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States (U.S.)
Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. I.1 After review, this Court affirms.

       1
           Dubich identified the following issues in her Statement of Questions Involved:
                I. Were my [c]onstitutional [r]ights violated by the Appointing
                Authority . . . and/or by [the] SCSC’s Decision/Opinion?
                ....
                II. Were the Appointing Authority’s findings of fact limited to the
                question of whether the [SCSC’s] findings were adequately
                supported by the evidence as a whole?
                ....
                III. Were the findings of the Appointing Authority and/or the SCSC
                [] arbitrary or capricious?
                ....
                IV. Did I violate [the] Work Rules and the [Appointing Authority’s]
                Workplace Violence [] Policy by stating on May 17, 2019[,] that I
                had a gun in my purse, which standing alone would result in
                termination?
                ....
                V. Did I neglect my duties on numerous occasions by failing to
                communicate with staff as necessary and refusing to do medication
                counts as required?
                ....
                VI. Did I post on social media a response with explicit remarks
                without merit that referenced [SWVC] and its employees that affect
                the credibility of the Commonwealth, the [Appointing Authority]
                and SWVC?
                ....
                VII. Did [the] SCSC make their [sic] adjudication decision on
                verifiable facts in the record and written witness statements and
                testimony?
Dubich Br. at 2-3. Because these issues are subsumed in this Court’s rephrasing of the issues, they
will be addressed accordingly.
                                                 2
             The Appointing Authority employed Dubich as an L.P.N. at the SWVC,
where she worked the evening shift. On September 27, 2017, Dubich signed,
acknowledged, and agreed to abide by the Appointing Authority’s Work Rules. See
Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 369b-375b. The Work Rules prohibit
employees from neglecting their duties or responsibilities by, inter alia, failing to
perform assigned tasks or legitimate work assignments. See S.R.R. at 200b, 369b.
The Work Rules also forbid an employee from failing “to adhere to policies related
to medication/treatment administration, notification, and documentation[.]” S.R.R.
at 370b. In addition, the Work Rules prohibit “[a]ny action which violates the
Commonwealth or [Appointing Authority] Workplace Violence [Policy] during
working hours, or while on any [Appointing Authority] property, including but not
limited to: inflicting bodily harm, [and] threatening, intimidating, coercing, or
interfering with fellow employees, supervisors, residents, or the general public.”
S.R.R. at 373b. The Work Rules further ban “[t]hreatening, intimidating, interfering
with, or using abusive or profane language including ethnic slurs,” and
“inappropriate conduct or behavior towards fellow employees, supervisors, residents
or the general public, during working hours or while on any [Appointing Authority]
property.” S.R.R. at 373b. The Work Rules also proscribe “[a]ny action which
would reflect unfavorably on or discredit the Commonwealth or [Appointing
Authority], including but not limited to: public posts on social media, news outlets,
or websites.” See S.R.R. at 373b. The Work Rules declare that “[v]iolations of these
rules may . . . result in appropriate disciplinary actions up to and including
termination.” S.R.R. at 369b.
             On May 17, 2019, while entering the SWVC facility, L.P.N. Rita
Thomas (Thomas) asked Dubich about the weight of her purse, to which Dubich
responded that there was a gun in it. On May 17, 2019, at 3:20 p.m., Registered
Nurse (R.N.) Sherry Walters (Walters) called Director of Nursing Ronna Stewart
                                         3
(Stewart) and informed her about Dubich’s claim that she was carrying a gun.
Stewart informed Assistant Director of Nursing Shannon Phillips (Phillips) about
Dubich’s statement, and instructed Phillips and security to approach Dubich to
investigate whether her representation was true.2 Stewart then proceeded to Human
Resource (H.R.) Analyst 2 Jamie Cuthbert’s (Cuthbert) office, where she reported
Dubich’s purported gun possession to Cuthbert and Commandant Richard Adams
(Adams).
              While Stewart was consulting with Cuthbert and Adams, Phillips and
the security guard approached Dubich and asked her to talk to them in private.
Dubich immediately became defensive. Phillips reiterated that she needed to talk
with Dubich in private. Phillips, the security guard and Dubich went into the laundry
room, where Phillips said to Dubich: “[P]lease tell me this is not true. Did you say
you have a gun in your purse?” S.R.R. at 126b. Dubich responded: “This is
ridiculous,” and offered to let Phillips and the security guard search her purse. Id.
The security guard searched Dubich’s purse and found no gun. Phillips explained
to Dubich that as an employee, she cannot make statements about having a gun inside
her purse, especially given the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting and because they
are in a public building. Dubich responded that she was joking when Thomas asked
her why her purse was so heavy. Dubich admitted to Phillips that she said to
Thomas: “Yeah. That’s because I got [sic] my Glock in there.” S.R.R. at 127b.
              While Dubich spoke with Phillips, Dubich accused Clerk 2 Timothy
Oleniacz (Oleniacz) of reporting her to management. Oleniacz was nearby when
Dubich made the gun statement, but he did not hear what she said. Dubich’s false
accusation about Oleniacz spread through the building, creating what Oleniacz

       2
         Phillips was concerned by Dubich’s statement both because of a recent shooting at Tree
of Life Synagogue, and because she previously overheard Dubich speaking to R.N. Kimberly
Watson (Watson) about a fight Dubich had with another woman. Dubich had told Watson that she
threw the woman down a set of stairs.
                                              4
claimed was a hostile work environment for him. Although Oleniacz did not hear
what was said, R.N. Kimberly Watson (Watson) was present for the conversation
and observed Thomas lifting Dubich’s purse and characterizing it as heavy. Watson
overheard Dubich respond that her purse was heavy due to her gun, and noted such
in a witness statement.3
              On May 21, 2019, Cuthbert conducted Dubich’s first due process
conference (DPC). On May 30, 2019, the Appointing Authority suspended Dubich
pending investigation based on allegations of violating the Workplace Violence
Policy arising from her statement that she was carrying a gun.
              During Dubich’s Workplace Violence investigation, Stewart received
a report that Dubich failed to perform a medication count at the day shift and evening
shift exchange with the out-going nurse.               Pursuant to the SWVC Narcotic
Reconciliation Record, during the shift change at 6:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 10:00
p.m., “the oncoming medication nurse and the out-going medication nurse, jointly
count and certify the correct amount of each [c]ontrolled drug.” S.R.R. at 381b.
Both medication nurses are required to document and certify on the Narcotic-
Sedative Record that the count was correct. Any discrepancies are to be documented
and reported to the Nurse Supervisor. The Work Rules characterize an employee’s
“[f]ailure to perform assigned tasks or a legitimate work assignment[,]” and an
employee’s “dishonesty, including the falsification of reports and records,” as a
neglect of his or her duties or responsibilities. S.R.R. at 369b. During shift changes,
L.P.N. Jeanette Myers (Myers) observed Dubich refusing to complete her assigned

       3
          Initially, when Stewart and Cuthbert asked Watson to write a witness statement, she
declined because she was conducting a narcotic medication count. Watson explained that she
eventually wrote a witness statement after the Appointing Authority “threatened [her with]
discipline if [she] didn’t give a statement.” S.R.R. at 234b. However, Watson later claimed that
she erred in the witness statement - she never said Dubich had a gun on her person. See S.R.R. at
237b.
                                               5
medication counts. As a result, Watson completed Dubich’s medication counts for
Dubich during the shift change while Dubich left the unit. Watson admitted that
when Dubich refused to complete her assigned medication counts, Watson
completed them on Dubich’s behalf. Myers also observed Dubich consistently
ignore and not communicate with her coworkers during shift changes. Oleniacz
described that Dubich’s failure to communicate with staff members between shifts
made the work environment toxic.
             On June 3, 2019, shortly after Dubich’s suspension began, Phillips
forwarded an email to Stewart from Sean Lukachyk (Lukachyk)4 with an attached
Facebook response Dubich gave to Andy Knapp’s (Knapp)5 June 1, 2019 Facebook
post that stated: “SWVC just cut loose one of, if not the most knowledgeable
L.P.N.’s [sic] I have ever had the pleasure of working with!!! That’s their loss. Take
your talents elsewhere. You are better than that place!!!” S.R.R. at 455b. Dubich
responded thereto, in relevant part:

             That’s a cesspool of toxicity! They want a bunch of sheep
             working there who will bow [at] their every whim. Want
             me [to] cover-up their gross negligence. They’re gonna
             [sic] kill [someone] . . . oh w[ait] . . . they already have
             more than once with their incompetence.
             ....
             Yeah . . . [. . T]hey would rather have nurses who cover
             sh[*]t up, double dose patients, [and] make errors literally
             every single day than people who actually care about the
             residents. Because the [Director of Nursing] doesn’t want
             the bad light shining on her princess a[**] after she walked
             [i]n after the lovely episode of leaving a [patient] on a
             bedpan [for] [three] days. Her [and] H[.]R[.] [sic] going
             around asking certain people [to] write statements against
             me because she told the charge nurse she wants me fired

      4
          Lukachyk’s position was not identified in the SCSC’s Decision; however, Dubich
indicates that Lukachyk is an R.N. working at the SWVC.
        5
          Knapp is identified as a friend of some of the SWVC employees.
                                           6
             because my documentation is a legal issue. Meanwhile
             [you are] supposed [to] practice defensive charting. I’ve
             never had a job [sic] defensive charting. I’ve never had a
             job EVER criticize my charting. In fact they’ve all praised
             it [and] it’s [sic] saved the a[**]es of many [i]n the past.
             And it’s [sic] save[d] my a[**] [three] times when being a
             witness [i]n depositions.

S.R.R. at 455b-456b.
             On June 14, 2019, the Appointing Authority notified Dubich that based
on the conducted interviews, witness statements, and evidence collected, the
investigation substantiated the Workplace Violence allegations against Dubich . On
June 17, 2019, H.R. Analyst 3 Bryan Bender (Bender) conducted Dubich’s second
DPC.    Thereafter, Cuthbert’s disciplinary packet was compiled with witness
statements, DPC notes, Dubich’s prior disciplinary actions, and correspondence, and
sent to Bender in the Appointing Authority’s Labor Relations Department. After
reviewing the disciplinary packet, Bender recommended Dubich’s removal and
drafted Dubich’s employment termination letter.
             By July 17, 2019 letter, the Appointing Authority notified Dubich of
her discharge, effective July 17, 2019, as follows:

             The reason for your termination is your violation of the
             [Appointing Authority’s] . . . Work Rules, the [Appointing
             Authority’s] Workplace Violence . . . Policy [(Workplace
             Violence charge)], and the [SWVC’s] Nursing Policies
             and Procedures. Specifically, on May 17, 2019, you made
             a comment in the workplace that you have a gun in your
             purse.     Additionally, on numerous occasions, you
             neglected your duty [(Neglect of Duty charges)] when you
             failed to communicate with staff as necessary [(Failure to
             Communicate charge)] and refused to do medication
             counts as required. You had a charge nurse count and take
             ownership of the medication cart during shift change and
             would then take control of it from her after the other shift
             had left [(Refusal to Perform Medication Counts charge)].
             Furthermore, on or about June 1, 2019, you made a post
             on social media that referenced [the SWVC] and its
                                          7
               employees making remarks that affect the credibility of
               the Commonwealth, the [Appointing Authority] and [the]
               SWVC. Your comments were explicit and without merit,
               referencing that SWVC kills people and specifically
               calling out the Director of Nursing. This post was made
               on a public forum.
               Your violation of the [Appointing Authority] Workplace
               Violence . . . Policy standing alone would result in your
               termination.

S.R.R. at 393b.
               On August 4, 2019, Dubich appealed from the Appointing Authority’s
removal decision to the SCSC and asserted discrimination claims alleging
retaliation, disparate treatment, and a violation of her right to freedom of speech.
Therein, she contended that her employment termination was in retaliation for her
reporting misconduct by other nurses, that she was treated differently than other
employees and that the Appointing Authority improperly terminated her
employment for exercising her free speech rights. The SCSC held a hearing on
February 24, 2020, at which the Appointing Authority presented testimony from
Cuthbert, Myers, Phillips, Oleniacz, Stewart, Bender, R.N. Supervisor Immanuel
Divakar (Divakar), and Adams. Divakar, Watson, Dubich, Stewart, and Cuthbert
testified on Dubich’s behalf.           On September 23, 2021, the SCSC issued its
adjudication and order, finding that the Appointing Authority had just cause for
Dubich’s removal, and that Dubich presented no credible evidence to support her
discrimination claim. Notably, the SCSC explained that “[Dubich’s] charge of
violating the [A]ppointing [A]uthority’s Workplace Violence [Policy] standing
alone would warrant her removal.” S.R.R. at 553b. Dubich appealed to this Court.6

       6
          “Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the [SCSC] committed an
error of law, whether there has been a violation of constitutional rights, or whether there is
substantial evidence to support the findings of fact necessary to support the adjudication.” Norvell
v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 11 A.3d 1058, 1061-62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
                                                 8
               Dubich first argues that the Appointing Authority violated her due
process rights by denying her the right to see the details and specifics of the charges
against her. Further, she claims the SCSC erred by relying on hearsay evidence in
sustaining her removal.
               Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared:

               The essential requirements of due process . . . are notice
               and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present
               reasons, either in person or in writing, why [a] proposed
               action should not be taken is a fundamental due process
               requirement. The tenured public employee is entitled to
               oral or written notice of the charges against h[er], an
               explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an
               opportunity to present h[er] side of the story. To
               require more than this prior to termination would intrude
               to an unwarranted extent on the government’s interest in
               quickly removing an unsatisfactory employee.

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985) (emphasis added;
citations omitted).
               Here, the Appointing Authority conducted an investigation and two
DPCs at which Dubich was provided “notice of the charges against [her], an
explanation of the [Appointing Authority’s] evidence, and an opportunity to present
[her] side of the story.”7 Id. Accordingly, the Appointing Authority satisfied the
“essential requirements of due process[.]” Id.
               Dubich also asserts that the SCSC’s decision was not based on
substantial evidence, and that the SCSC improperly based its decision on hearsay
evidence. Specifically, Dubich claims:

               There was absolutely no evidence presented or included to
               sustain the charges against me at the two DPC[]s or at any
               other time. [The] SCSC accepted the Appointing
               Authority’s charges as valid by applying hearsay as facts
               in their [sic] incorrect ruling that the Appointing Authority
      7
          See S.R.R. at 401b-425b.
                                            9
            provided sufficient evidence to prove the charges against
            me.

Dubich Br. at 11. Dubich further asserted:

            The Appointing Authority did not investigate as required
            by the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules to find
            substantial facts to prove I did what I was charged with
            [sic]. The[] [Appointing Authority] did not produce any
            findings of fact with supported admissible evidence or
            proof. The[] [Appointing Authority’s] whole case against
            me was based on assumptions, beliefs and hearsay
            statements that were not verified for truth.

Id.
            With respect to the Workplace Violence charge, the SCSC determined:

            Upon careful review of the record, the [SCSC] finds the
            [A]ppointing [A]uthority has presented sufficient
            evidence to support the charge of [Dubich] stating she had
            a gun in her purse on May 17, 2019. We find Cuthbert,
            Phillips, Stewart, and Bender credible that [Dubich’s] gun
            statement was unauthorized behavior for [an L.P.N.]
            because the threatening and intimidating statement
            interfered with her fellow employees and supervisors in
            violation of the [A]ppointing [A]uthority’s Work Rules,
            and Workplace Violence . . . Polic[y]. While Phillips and
            Stewart confirmed [Dubich] did not possess a gun inside
            her purse, we are not persuaded [sic] the lack of the
            presence of a gun lessens the impact of [Dubich’s]
            comment. It is unacceptable that [Dubich] considered her
            gun statement as a joke in the workplace.

S.R.R. at 561b (footnote omitted).
            This Court has explained:

            [U]nder [Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence] 803(25), a
            party’s out-of-court admission is an exception to the
            hearsay exclusion. This Court has long held “that words
            of a party constitute an admission and therefore may
            always be used against [her].” Evans v. Unemployment
            Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], . . . 484 A.2d 822, 827 ([Pa. Cmwlth.]
            1984). This exception is based upon the fact that, unlike

                                        10
                hearsay, a party’s admission is personal first-hand
                knowledge, and it may support a . . . finding of fact.

Stugart v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 85 A.3d 606, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
                The Appointing Authority investigated Dubich’s charged conduct,
collected employee statements, and provided two DPCs at which Dubich
participated.     With respect to the Workplace Violence charge resulting from
Dubich’s gun statement, Thomas, the person to whom Dubich’s statement was
directed, did not appear at the SCSC hearing. No other witnesses testified that they
heard first-hand Dubich make the statement. Nonetheless, Phillips testified that she
spoke with Dubich directly after the incident, when security searched Dubich’s purse
and Dubich admitted saying that she had a gun in her purse. Phillips stated:

                And I was trying to explain to [Dubich] you can’t --- she
                told me that it was a joke. She had said that as a joke
                because [Thomas] had asked her why her purse was so
                heavy, and she said, yeah, that’s because I got my
                Glock in there. I said you can’t say something like that,
                especially not in a public building, especially when we just
                had the Tree of Life [Synagogue shooting] happen not that
                long ago. And she said this is not the Tree of Life
                [Synagogue].

S.R.R. at 126b-127b (emphasis added). In addition, Cuthbert testified before the
SCSC that Dubich admitted at the first DPC to making the gun comment, but insisted
it was made in a joking manner. See S.R.R. at 73b. Further, Bender testified that
Dubich claimed in the second DPC that she made the statement in a joking manner.
See S.R.R. at 197b. Because witnesses testified that Dubich confirmed making the
statement, her out-of-court statements are party admissions permissible for the
SCSC’s consideration.8

                It is well settled that the [SCSC] has the inherent power to
                determine the credibility of witnesses and the value of
      8
         Bender also testified that Dubich’s conduct violated the Work Rules because she
referenced a gun at the workplace. See S.R.R. at 197b-198b.
                                            11
               their testimony. . . . In making its findings, the [SCSC]
               must base the findings upon substantial evidence.
               Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
               reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the
               conclusion.

McAndrew v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ. Dev.), 736 A.2d 26,
31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (citation omitted). Thus, the SCSC was free to evaluate the
witnesses’ credibility and determine the weight to give their testimony. Having
found Phillips, Cuthbert, and Bender credible, see S.R.R. at 561b, their testimony
constitutes substantial competent evidence supporting the Workplace Violence
charge.9 Accordingly, the Appointing Authority did not violate Dubich’s due
process rights, and the SCSC did not rely on hearsay evidence in sustaining her
dismissal with respect to the Workplace Violence charge.

       9
          Dubich also contends that the Appointing Authority violated her due process rights by
prohibiting her from “seeing any details and specifics of the charges brought against [her] in
violation of . . . Commonwealth Management Directive [(]M.D.[)] 590.1 [(relating to discipline)].”
Dubich Br. at 10-11. Dubich does not identify the specific section of M.D. 590.1 to which she
refers. However, M.D. 590.1(5)(j) states, in relevant part:

                  (1) Prior to determining whether and to what extent an employee
                  will be disciplined, an agency will:

                     (a) notify the employee of the basis, i.e., allegations upon
                     which discipline is being considered; and

                     (b) provide the employee with an opportunity to meet with an
                     agency representative regarding those charges. At that
                     meeting, the employee will be provided an explanation of the
                     evidence upon which the charges are based and will be given
                     an opportunity to rebut the charges and/or provide information
                     regarding any mitigating or extenuating circumstances the
                     employee believes relevant. This meeting is termed an
                     “investigatory interview”, “fact-finding meeting”, or (by
                     some agencies) a “pre-disciplinary conference.”
Id. (underline emphasis added); https://www.oa.pa.gov/Policies/md/Documents/590_1.pdf (last
visited Jan. 18, 2023). At the DPCs, the Appointing Authority described the charges and
allegations against Dubich and afforded her the opportunity to address them. See S.R.R. at 401b-
425b. Thus, Dubich’s contention is meritless.
                                               12
               In the Appointing Authority’s Neglect of Duties charges, it alleged that
Dubich failed to communicate with staff and that Dubich refused to perform
medication counts. With respect to the Failure to Communicate charge, the SCSC
relied on Myers’ testimony: “[] Dubich would not speak to us.” S.R.R. at 103b.
Myers was asked: “[D]id she not talk to you?” Id. Myers responded: “No.” Id.
Myers expounded: “Only if she had to. But for the most part[,] she’d ignore me.”
Id. Myers testified that she observed Dubich also ignore other employees, including
Walters and Oleniacz. See S.R.R. at 103b-104b. She described Dubich as appearing
angry. See S.R.R. at 104b.
               Oleniacz characterized the work environment as toxic, due to a dispute
between Dubich and Walters. See S.R.R. at 144b, 151b. Oleniacz further claimed
that Dubich had falsely reported that he had improperly destroyed a fax, and spread
a rumor that he had reported her statement regarding the gun to the Appointing
Authority Administration. See S.R.R. at 144b. Similarly, Stewart characterized the
environment as “very strained,” and “very tense, at times hostile” when Dubich was
working, due to the staff’s failure to communicate as a team. S.R.R. at 159b.
               Phillips, Dubich’s supervisor, also testified that she observed Dubich’s
personality conflicts and lack of communication with fellow employees. See S.R.R.
at 120b-121b. Phillips further described that following a disagreement, Dubich
refused to talk to her for several months. See S.R.R. at 122b. She stated that when
Dubich would communicate with her, Dubich’s tone would be hostile and defensive.
See id. Accordingly, it became difficult for Phillips to get information from Dubich.
See id.
               Regarding the alleged Refusal to Perform Medication Counts charge,
the SCSC relied on Stewart’s, Watson’s, and Bender’s testimony.10 Stewart testified

       10
          Myers also testified that “[a]t times[, Dubich] wouldn’t count the med carts with us, the
narcotics.” S.R.R. at 103b.
                                                13
that she had received a report from Walters that Dubich failed to count medication
at a shift change as required. See S.R.R. at 163b. Stewart recalled that, in a DPC
for Watson, Watson admitted that she had performed the medication count for
Dubich to “keep the peace.” S.R.R. at 164b. Watson acknowledged in her testimony
to the SCSC that she had taken over the medication cart and that if Dubich made an
error, Watson would ultimately be accountable. See S.R.R. at 254b. Bender testified
that Dubich’s failure to perform required medication counts constituted Dubich’s
failure to perform her duties. See S.R.R. at 200b-201b. The SCSC found the
testimony of the Appointing Authority’s witnesses credible.
               The SCSC, as fact-finder, was empowered to determine the
aforementioned witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give their testimony. The
testimony supports the conclusion that Dubich neglected her duties by failing to
communicate with staff and refusing to perform medication counts and, thus,
constitutes substantial evidence supporting the SCSC’s decision.11
               For all of the above reasons, the SCSC’s order is affirmed.

                                             _________________________________
                                             ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

       11
          Dubich also contends that the Appointing Authority violated her First Amendment rights
by terminating her employment based, in part, on her posted response to a friend’s Facebook post.
However, because the SCSC concluded that “[Dubich’s] charge of violating the [A]ppointing
[A]uthority’s Workplace Violence [Policy,] standing alone[,] would warrant her removal,” S.R.R.
at 553b, and this Court has concluded that the SCSC properly sustained that charge, this Court
does not reach Dubich’s First Amendment argument. See Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Rev., 945 A.2d 261, 266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (“[W]hen faced with a case raising constitutional and
non-constitutional grounds, a court must decide the matter on non-constitutional grounds and avoid
constitutional questions if possible.”).

                                               14
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Leslie Dubich,                        :
                  Petitioner          :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Department of Military and            :
Veterans Affairs (State Civil         :
Service Commission),                  :   No. 1144 C.D. 2021
                   Respondent         :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2023, the State Civil Service
Commission’s September 23, 2021 order is affirmed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge