Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Leadbetter](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10807774/s-donahue-v-dhs-scsc/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

S. Donahue v. DHS (SCSC)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 976 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Leadbetter

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8209/bonnie-brigance-leadbetter/)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sean Donahue, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 976 C.D. 2024
: SUBMITTED: February 3, 2026
Department of Human Services :
(State Civil Service Commission), :
Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: March 12, 2026

Petitioner, Sean Donahue, petitions for review of the order of the State
Civil Service Commission issued June 25, 2024, denying his request for a hearing
and dismissing his appeal because it was untimely filed and contained insufficient
allegations of discrimination.1 We affirm.
Petitioner has been employed by the Department of Human Services as
an Income Maintenance Caseworker (IMC) since September 2023. Reproduced
Record (R.R.) at 33a; Pet. for Rev. ¶ 5. In April 2024, Petitioner submitted an appeal
request form to the Commission alleging that the Department discriminated against

1
As explained in this Court’s Order issued November 15, 2024, a petitioner may not appeal
multiple orders with a single petition for review. See Croft v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.,
662 A.2d 24, 27-28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Therefore, the instant petition for review has been
deemed to be an appeal solely from the Commission’s order at Appeal No. 31330, not any of the
12 additional orders Petitioner provided to the Court.
him based on political opinions/affiliations, religious opinions/affiliations, national
origin and age, and by misusing the bilingual requirement in hiring to circumvent
his veterans’ preference. See R.R. at 3a-5a. More specifically, Petitioner claimed
that the Department’s Spanish language requirement on IMC job postings dating
back to 2006 was not necessary to the IMC position and that the Department
“misused the unnecessary [S]panish language requirement to deter [him] from
applying for numerous [IMC] positions and to not consider [him] for employment
when [he] did apply.” R.R. at 4a. Petitioner sought “backpay and back benefits for
every bilingual position it hired for since 2006.” Id.2
After reviewing all information presented by Petitioner on his appeal
form and attachments, the Commission issued its order denying his request for a
hearing and dismissing his appeal. R.R. at 33a-34a. Petitioner then petitioned this
Court for review.3
First, we note that Petitioner fails to explicitly include the issue of
timeliness in the statement of questions involved portion of his brief, and the issue
is neither developed nor addressed at all in the argument portion; therefore, this issue
has been waived. Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is
stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”). See,
e.g., Dobson Park Mgmt., LLC v. Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 203 A.3d 1134, 1139 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019) (“An issue that is not addressed or developed in the argument section

2
On April 29, 2024, Petitioner submitted a supplemental appeal request form containing
the same allegations. R.R. at 11a-13a.
3
Petitioner’s brief states that “[t]his Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 761[.]” Pet’r’s Br. at 3 (emphasis added). However, Section 761 of the Judicial Code
pertains to this Court’s original jurisdiction. Because this is an appeal from an agency’s final
order, and Petitioner has not pled any claims implicating the Court’s original jurisdiction, our
jurisdiction stems solely from Section 763(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 763(a).

2
of a brief may be waived.”) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, we provide a brief
explanation of why the Commission did not err in this regard.
Section 2704 of the Civil Service Reform Act provides that “[a]n officer
or employee of the Commonwealth may not discriminate against an individual in
recruitment, examination, appointment, training, promotion, retention or any other
personnel action with respect to the classified service because of race, gender,
religion, disability or political, partisan or labor union affiliation or other non[-]merit
factors.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 2704. Notably, Section 3003(7)(ii) of the Act states: “A
person who is aggrieved by an alleged violation of [S]ection 2704 (relating to
prohibition of discrimination) may appeal in writing to the [C]ommission within 20
calendar days of the alleged violation.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 3003(7)(ii). The Commission’s
rules reiterate this 20-day deadline for hearing requests. See former 4 Pa. Code §
105.12 (a)(3).4
While Petitioner did not specify the relevant IMC positions and non-
selections which serve as the basis for his discrimination claims, they must have
occurred prior to his hiring by the Department as an IMC in September 2023. This
time period is confirmed by the fact that Petitioner requests backpay and benefits
dating back to 2006. R.R. at 3a-5a (“The agency owes me backpay and back benefits
for every bilingual [IMC] position it hired for since 2006.”). Petitioner did not
submit his appeal request challenging these actions until April 2024, well beyond
the 20-day deadline. See 71 Pa.C.S. § 3003(7)(ii); 4 Pa. Code § 105.12 (a).
Therefore, the Commission did not err in determining that Petitioner’s appeal was
untimely.

4
Section 105.12 of the Commission’s rules was amended effective August 15, 2025. This
opinion cites to the prior version of the rule because it was in effect when Petitioner submitted his
appeal request form and when the Commission issued its order.

3
Even if Petitioner’s appeal had been timely, we find no error in the
Commission’s determination that Petitioner failed to state a prima facie
discrimination claim. Section 105.12(c) of the Commission’s rules states:

(c) Appeals alleging discrimination which do not include
specific facts relating to discrimination may be dismissed.
Specific facts which should appear on the appeal form
include:

(1) The acts complained of.

(2) How the treatment differs from treatment of
others similarly situated.

(3) When the acts occurred.

(4) When and how the [petitioner] first became
aware of the alleged discrimination.

4 Pa. Code § 105.12 (c). As we have explained, “mere general and conclusory
allegations of discrimination are not adequate. There must be specific factual
allegations of discrimination within the context of Section 105.12(c) of the”
Commission’s rules. Allen v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole),
992 A.2d 924, 929 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). In addition, “[a]ffirmative factual
allegations must support all claims of discrimination because discrimination cannot
be inferred.” Reck v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Pa. Liquor Control Bd.), 992 A.2d
977, 979 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Here, Petitioner’s appeal request form does not comply with these
requirements because Petitioner failed to include facts explaining the acts
complained of, when those acts occurred, or how he was treated differently from
others similarly situated. See 4 Pa. Code § 105.12 (c). Specifically, Petitioner failed
to identify which prior IMC positions, eligibility determinations, and non-selections

4
were at issue. See Donahue v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Hum. Servs.) (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 128 C.D. 2020, filed May 3, 2021), slip op. at 6 (“Veterans’ preference
applies only when a candidate is selected from a certified list of eligibles containing
the name of an eligible veteran. See 51 Pa.C.S. § 7104(b).”)5 (emphasis in original).
Moreover, while Petitioner indicated on his appeal form that he was asserting
discrimination based on political opinions/affiliations, national origin, religious
opinions/affiliations, and age, he failed to plead any factual allegations pertaining to
these grounds. Petitioner also claims that the Department used the bilingual
language requirement to circumvent him and hire Hispanic employees instead;
however, his allegations are merely general and conclusory statements, based on his
own purported observations rather than affirmative facts. For these reasons, we find
that the Commission properly dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Reck; Allen; Donahue
v. Pa. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 255 M.D. 2024, filed June 23, 2025).
Finally, Petitioner points to the language of Section 3003(7)(ii) of the
Act stating that “[u]pon receipt of the notice of appeal, the [C]ommission shall
promptly schedule and hold a public hearing.” 71 Pa.C.S. § 3003(7)(ii) (emphasis
added). Petitioner argues that the Act’s use of the term “shall” is mandatory and,
therefore, the Commission erred by failing to provide him with a hearing. This
argument lacks merit. This Court has long held that, notwithstanding the language
of the Act, “‘[t]he Commission is authorized to dismiss an appeal, sua sponte,
without a hearing if the appeal request form fails to state a claim’ of discrimination.”
Donahue v. Pa. Dep’t of Human Servs., slip op. at 10 (quoting Reck, 992 A.2d at

5
Unreported panel decisions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value pursuant
to Rule 126(b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1), and
Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a). Citation
to this case is particularly persuasive because it involves the same petitioner asserting a similar
discrimination claim against the Department.

5
979). See also Craig v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Env’t Prot.), 800 A.2d
364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (same).
Accordingly, the Commission’s order is affirmed.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita

6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sean Donahue, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 976 C.D. 2024
:
Department of Human Services :
(State Civil Service Commission), :
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2026, the Order of the State Civil
Service Commission is hereby AFFIRMED.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita