Cornwall-Lebanon SD v. Cornwall-Lebanon Education Association
814 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Teacher Luke Scipioni, a tenured high-school social-studies teacher and former girls’ basketball coach, had a sexual relationship with a former student (AH) that began after her graduation in 2004; rumors circulated while she was still a student.
- District investigated in 2014 following an anonymous tip during Scipioni’s divorce proceedings and charged him with multiple offenses including an improper relationship with a student, dishonesty to supervisors, illegal music downloads on a District computer, and retaining/forwarding inappropriate e-mail images.
- The Association grieved; an arbitrator sustained some charges (improper relationship as framed by the District and unlawful downloads) and denied others (lying to the Superintendent and retention of inappropriate e-mails), but mitigated termination to a one-year unpaid suspension with strict contingencies and probationary conditions.
- The District petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to vacate the arbitration award under the public-policy exception to arbitration deference; common pleas vacated the award and reinstated termination.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed de novo whether the arbitrator’s award contravened public policy and whether the trial court improperly reweighed facts and substituted its judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award contravenes public policy such that it must be vacated | District: the award undermines duties to protect students and requires termination to avoid public-policy breach | Association: award satisfies essence test; public-policy exception is narrow and award did not pose unacceptable risk to public duties | Reversed trial court: award did not contravene public policy; common pleas improperly reweighed facts and substituted judgment |
| Whether the trial court may reweigh arbitrator’s factual findings and penalty reasonableness | District: facts (relationship timing, dishonesty, emails) justify vacatur and termination | Association: arbitrator’s factual findings and remedy are binding unless award itself violates public policy | Held: trial court impermissibly reweighed facts and assessed reasonableness; appellate court defers to arbitrator |
| Whether the timing of the relationship constituted misconduct while AH was a student | District: relationship had roots during AH’s student status, implicating child-protection policy | Association: arbitrator found no impropriety while AH was a student and that sexual contact occurred after graduation | Held: arbitrator made no finding of misconduct while AH was student; court may not substitute its own timing finding |
| Whether offensive e-mails on District computer justified termination | District: e-mails combined with other conduct warrant discharge | Association: arbitrator found most emails crude but non-pornographic, few truly troubling, and no evidence they were shown at school | Held: arbitrator’s assessment that emails alone did not justify discharge stands; common pleas overstepped by aggregating misconduct to vacate award |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass’n, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (recognizes narrow public-policy exception to enforcement of arbitration awards)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (three-step test for applying public-policy exception)
- Coatesville Area Sch. Dist. v. Coatesville Area Teachers’ Ass’n, PSEA, 978 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (arbitrator’s factual findings and contract interpretation are not subject to de novo review)
- Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Fed’n of State, County, and Mun. Emps., Dist. Council 33, Local 934, 52 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2012) (determination whether award violates public policy is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
- Pa. Tpk. Comm’n v. Teamsters Local Union No. 250, 948 A.2d 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (party asserting that award contravenes public policy bears burden of proving violation)