Peake v. Commonwealth
2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 585, 2015 WL 9488235, 132 A.3d 506 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute creating a lifetime employment ban based on past criminal convictions violates substantive due process under the Pennsylvania Constitution if it creates an irrebuttable presumption of unfitness that is not substantially related to the state's objective, is not universally true, and where reasonable alternative means exist to assess an individual's fitness.
Facts:
- Tyrone Peake was convicted of attempted theft of an automobile at age 18, over thirty years prior to this suit.
- Joan Grey, a Licensed Practical Nurse, was convicted of possession of drugs with intent to deliver seventeen years prior.
- Charles Ford was convicted of robbery and assault over thirty years prior, stemming from an incident when he was 20 years old.
- Desmond Lowe pled guilty to theft by receiving stolen property sixteen years prior after unknowingly borrowing a stolen car.
- Rudolph Jainlett was convicted for writing bad checks and auto theft nearly two decades prior.
- All individual petitioners have maintained clean criminal records since their respective convictions but are permanently barred from employment in facilities covered by the Act.
- Resources for Human Development, Inc., a non-profit social service provider, is prevented by the Act from hiring qualified job candidates it wishes to employ who have rehabilitated themselves after past criminal convictions.
- Prior to the Act's ban, Resources for Human Development, Inc. had a practice of hiring persons with criminal convictions who had been rehabilitated and found them to be valuable employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Tyrone Peake and other individuals, along with Resources For Human Development, Inc., filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania's original jurisdiction.
- The petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that Section 503(a) of the Older Adults Protective Services Act is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
- Petitioners filed a motion for summary relief, asserting that their right to relief was clear and no material facts were in dispute.
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responded by filing preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 503(a) of Pennsylvania's Older Adults Protective Services Act, which imposes a lifetime ban on employment in elder care facilities for individuals with certain past criminal convictions, violate the substantive due process guarantees of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt
Yes, the lifetime employment ban violates the due process guarantees of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The provision is facially unconstitutional because it is not substantially related to the goal of protecting older adults and creates an impermissible irrebuttable presumption of unfitness. The court reasoned that the law is irrational because it arbitrarily distinguishes between individuals based on their employment status on July 1, 1998, grandfathering in some employees with the same convictions it permanently bans in all other applicants. This distinction bears no rational relationship to the state's interest, making the law overbroad and not 'fine-tuned' to the necessities of the case. Furthermore, the ban creates an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption that any person ever convicted of an enumerated crime is forever a threat. This presumption fails the three-part test from Clayton because it infringes on the right to pursue an occupation, it is not universally true, and reasonable alternatives like individualized risk assessments exist.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that under the Pennsylvania Constitution's due process clause, lifetime employment prohibitions based on criminal history are subject to a more searching rational basis review than under the federal constitution. The ruling establishes a strong precedent against laws that use irrebuttable presumptions to permanently bar individuals from an entire field of employment, deeming such measures 'patently beyond the necessities of the case.' It requires the legislature to adopt more nuanced approaches that consider factors like the time elapsed since a conviction, evidence of rehabilitation, and the nature of the specific job, thereby protecting the right of individuals to pursue a lawful occupation. This will likely lead to challenges of other similar lifetime bans and force a legislative re-evaluation of how criminal records are used in employment screening.
