Bonatesta v. Northern Cambria School District
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 202
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- School District suspended Bonatesta for immoral conduct after March 11, 2009 incident involving Mikitko driving her car with Bonatesta present; firearm and drugs found in the vehicle but no DUI charge; Mikitko pled guilty to interlock violation; breathalyzer allegedly passed leading to release of Bonatesta at scene.
- Suppression hearing in Aug. 2009 contradicted officers’ accounts; breathalyzer showed .04; one officer testified Bonatesta was intoxicated while another contradicted that claim; charges dismissed in criminal case, Mikitko later pled guilty to interlock violation.
- Pre-termination Loudermill hearing (April 22, 2010) where Bonatesta stated she may have had one drink and was not intoxicated; she testified gun was in car for camping and she did not drive to school with it.
- Amended termination charges in June 2010 alleged Bonatesta (1) allowed intoxicated driver to operate her car, (2) was intoxicated, and (3) lied at Loudermill; Board found four immorality acts and suspended her without pay.
- Trial court reversed, holding Board’s findings lacked substantial evidence and that Owens’ Board testimony was unreliable; ordered back pay; Board appealed.
- Appellate court affirmed, adopting framework that immorality requires (i) act occurred, (ii) offends community morals, (iii) sets a bad example; held findings not supported by substantial evidence and that suspension for immorality required proof, not inherent managerial authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence | Bonatesta | Bonatesta | No; Board’s key findings rested on unreliable testimony (Owens) and lacked substantial evidence. |
| Whether Breathalyzer/OWENS testimony can sustain intoxication finding | Bonatesta | Bonatesta | No; breathalyzer alone and Owens’ testimony were insufficient and contradicted by other evidence. |
| Whether immorality must be proven for suspension, not just under managerial authority | Bonatesta | Northern Cambria School District | Immorality must be proven; suspension without proof of immorality lacks substantial basis. |
| Proper weight given to credibility determinations on appeal | Bonatesta | Board | Court may overturn arbitrary, capricious credibility findings; here Board’s credibility assessment was flawed. |
| Admissibility and use of breathalyzer results in non-criminal proceeding | Bonatesta | Board | Breathalyzer results can be considered among evidence; not determinative, but helpful to undermine Owens’ credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- McFerren v. Farrell Area School District, 993 A.2d 344 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (definition and elements of immorality; burden on school to prove all elements)
- Horosko v. School District of Mt. Pleasant Township, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939) (immorality as conduct offending community morals and setting a bad example)
- Kinniry v. Abington School District, 673 A.2d 429 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (three elements for immorality standard)
- Monaghan v. Board of School Directors, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 348, 618 A.2d 1239 (Pa.Cmwlth.1992) (substantial evidence standard; credibility is for the trier of fact)
- Agostino v. Township of Collier, 968 A.2d 258 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (credibility review when substantial evidence is lacking)
- Williams v. Joint Operating Committee of the Clearfield County Vocational Technical School, 824 A.2d 1233 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (single basis of discipline may uphold teacher discipline; multiple bases permissible)