Court Opinion

ID: 9635236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:43:08.676725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:21.757646
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in the dissenting opinion authored by Mr. Justice McDermott. I write separately, however, because I am of the opinion that the resolution of this matter lies in a middle ground between the position taken by Mr. Justice McDermott and that of the majority of this Court.
I would hold that where the commission has once determined itself lacking jurisdiction to prosecute a complaint against an entity, and in investigating a later complaint against the same entity alleging the same acts of discrimination seeks enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum, the respondent/entity may oppose the subpoena by producing credible, substantive evidence that the status of its operation has remained unchanged. Review by this Court is then limited to determining whether the lower court abused its discretion in enforcing the subpoena or denying enforcement based on the evidence before it. In re: Petition for *14Enforcement of a Subpoena to Anthony Semeraro, 511 Pa. 584, 588, 515 A.2d 880, 882 (1986).
Applying that rule to the instant case my review of the record indicates that the Appellee produced sufficient competent evidence to persuade the Commonwealth Court to conclude that its operation had remained status quo. At 515 Pa. 4-6, 526 A.2d 760. Finding no abuse of discretion, I would affirm.