Innocent Pending Proof of Guilt is the basis of a unanimous ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday that upheld a 2019 court order that the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Inc. should provide workers compensation for an injured worker, who was incarcerated and is waiting for the process, recalculated and reinstated
Carl Sadler suffered a sprain and amputation of his pinky finger as a maintenance mechanic at the Philadelphia-based subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Co. in 2012 and was jailed in 2013 for crimes not disclosed in court documents. Carl Sadler v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, filed with the Eastern Division of the Philadelphia Supreme Court.
In 2015, Coca-Cola applied for benefits to be suspended. “He claimed that (his) services should be suspended because he had spent 525 days in prison prior to his conviction and because that time was served on him after his conviction on January 22nd. In 2015 (he) should not be unjustifiably enriched and his performance should be adjusted accordingly, ”the documents say.
In two appeals, Mr Sadler alleged that state law provides that detention in court – detention for not being able to afford bail – is inconsistent with the “post-conviction detention” provision, which allows for documentary remuneration to be withheld. A labor compensation judge and the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board both ruled in favor of Philadelphia Coca-Cola.
On appeal in 2019, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court in Harrisburg reversed and agreed with Mr. Sadler that, “In the simple language of (state law), incarceration prior to conviction for inability to bail no period during which the worker is detained after a conviction, “and such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles underlying the Workers Compensation Act and its purpose.”
In its most recent appeal, Coca-Cola argued that the Commonwealth Court’s ruling under the Pennsylvania and federal government constitutions “leads to unequal application of the law,” arguing that the Commonwealth Court’s interpretation, if correct, prohibits two classes created by applicants who did so have been convicted of crimes: those who continue to receive benefits and those who do not. “
The state’s highest court ruled that equal protection laws do not apply: “[b]Since a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, detention in court is completely irrelevant to the question of guilt ”, as would be the case with a person detained after conviction, and“ therefore detention in court is not synonymous with a voluntary dismissal from the workforce. ”
Comments are closed.