The case involved Shanyong G. Wu, who worked as a table games dealer at a casino until his termination in July 2014 for leaving his assigned table unattended, in violation of employer policies after multiple prior warnings. Wu applied for unemployment compensation benefits, reporting that he had been laid off due to lack of work, but the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law for willful misconduct and imposed fault overpayment penalties under Sections 804(a), 801(b), and 801(c) for misrepresenting the reason for separation. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Wu had intentionally misled the agency about his discharge and that his primary language did not excuse the misrepresentation given evidence he could understand English.
The case involved the City of Lancaster and the Lancaster School District challenging the tax-exempt status of a parcel owned by the Red Rose Transit Authority (RRTA), a municipal authority, that contains bus waiting areas, bays, a roadway, and a 398-space parking garage integrated into the Queen Street Transit Center. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's order upholding the parcel's tax immunity and denying the cities' appeal from the county assessment board. The court applied the public-use test under the Municipality Authorities Act, noting that such authorities are presumed immune from taxes on property used for authorized governmental purposes, and found the parcel's facilities served RRTA's transit operations without being leased to private for-profit entities.
This case involved J.C.'s petition to expunge an indicated report of child abuse placed on Pennsylvania's ChildLine Registry after allegations by his young son Ja.C. amid a contentious custody dispute with the child's mother. The Department of Human Services upheld the report following an administrative hearing, but the Commonwealth Court reversed that decision. The court concluded that the child's out-of-court statements and testimony were unreliable due to taint from repeated adult questioning, the parents' acrimonious relationship, and the mother's heightened suspicions, and that the remaining evidence failed to prove abuse by a preponderance. As a result, the Secretary's order was reversed and the matter remanded for expungement.
Jewel Lee Camacho sued the West Chester Area School District for injuries sustained when she tripped over a movable concrete parking barrier on school property while leaving an event. The trial court granted the district's motion for summary judgment under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental immunity to local agencies except in limited circumstances. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the barrier was personal property rather than real property because it was not attached to the ground, so the real property exception to immunity did not apply. The court further concluded that the barrier did not qualify as a traffic control device under the Act's traffic control exception, as it merely delineated parking spaces without regulating traffic in the manner of signs or signals. The decision rested on precedent distinguishing affixed fixtures from movable items and on the facts showing the barrier's design and placement.
The case involved Cardiff Heights, L.P. and related parties appealing the Ross Township Board of Commissioners' denial of a planned residential development application to build 72 townhomes on a 19.7-acre split-zoned property with steep slopes in Allegheny County. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, and the Commonwealth Court consolidated and reviewed the appeals. The court held that the plan was not deemed approved by operation of law and that the Board properly denied it due to noncompliance with subdivision and land development ordinance requirements on street design including cul-de-sacs, density and use, steep slope disturbance, and usable open space. The court further found no lack of good faith by the Township in processing the application. Accordingly, the trial court's order was affirmed.
School Express, a student transportation provider, sued Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 for breach of contract and violation of the implied duty of good faith after the IU assigned far fewer students for transport under a 2012 three-year agreement than it had under prior contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment to the IU, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The court held that the contract language was unambiguous in requiring School Express to transport only those students designated by the IU, without obligating the IU to assign any particular volume or number of students, and explicitly allowing alterations to routes and assignments. Because the agreement did not guarantee a minimum number of students, the reduction in assignments did not constitute a breach. The court rejected arguments that the missing schedule created ambiguity requiring consideration of prior dealings.