Dotterer v. School District of Allentown
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 294
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Dotterer, a long-tenured assistant high school principal, received fringe benefits under the Act 93 Plan and was a professional employee under the School Code.
- In June 2011, while on medical leave, the District advised a demotion to a teaching position, effective July 1, 2011, with salary and benefits reduced.
- Dotterer challenged the demotion, sought a hearing, and remained on medical leave while the district paid at the teacher rate; retirement planning began in 2012.
- On August 24, 2012, the district rescheduled the hearing; Dotterer withdrew his hearing request and retired effective August 21, 2012.
- In September 2012, the Board adopted a resolution demoting Dotterer retroactively to July 1, 2011; Dotterer did not appeal to the Secretary.
- The trial court dismissed Dotterer’s mandamus action for lack of jurisdiction, holding the School Code procedures were exclusive and applicable to retirees, and Dotterer did not exhaust them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the School Code provides exclusive relief and bars mandamus | Dotterer argues the demotion was illegal and School Code remedies did not apply to retirees. | District/Board argue Section 1127-1131 provide exclusive remedies through the Secretary; mandamus unavailable. | Yes; School Code remedies are exclusive and mandamus not available. |
| Whether retirement removes the applicability of School Code remedies | Retired status removes professional-employee protections; remedies do not apply. | Professional employee status defined by certification; retirement does not erase remedies. | No; remedies apply to retirees or those aggrieved by demotion. |
| Whether delay in scheduling a hearing excused exhaustion of remedies | Board delay excused pursuit of remedies; hearing never occurred. | Delay permissible if waiver; no complete withdrawal from statutory remedies. | Delay did not defeat statutory remedy; waiver and withdrawal scenario did not nullify requirements. |
| Whether this case should have been transferred to the Secretary | If jurisdiction lies with Secretary, transfer was appropriate. | Court should transfer under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(a) if proper tribunal; Dotterer declined. | No transfer; Dotterer knowingly relinquished interest in School Code procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Centennial Sch. Dist., 501 A.2d 218 (Pa. 1985) (exclusive remedy provisions preclude mandamus when statutory appeal exists)
- Merritt v. W. Mifflin Area Sch. Dist., 424 A.2d 572 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (exhaustion of statutory remedies required for mandamus)
- Black v. Bd. of Dirs. of West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 510 A.2d 912 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1986) (remedy is an appeal to Secretary when demotion contested)
- Tassone v. Sch. Dist. of Redstone Twp., 183 A.2d 536 (Pa. 1962) (demotion requires board hearing; cannot be retroactive)
- Pittenger, Board of Sch. Dirs. of Abington Sch. Dist. v., 305 A.2d 382 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1973) (board action required for demotion; hearing prerequisite; statutory procedures mandatory)
- Arnold v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Pub. Educ., 415 A.2d 985 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980) (voluntary resignation can waive rights to hearing)