Dr. P. Schellbach v. Colonial IU 20
1732 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Dr. Patricia Schellbach was hired as a school psychologist by Colonial Intermediate Unit #20 (CIU#20) and assigned to East Stroudsburg Area School District in Oct. 2013; duties included IDEA evaluations and meeting state timelines.
- Early performance problems: missed report deadlines, difficulty with District testing methodology, placed on a performance improvement plan Jan. 2014, received unsatisfactory ratings through Apr. 2014.
- Schellbach objected to District/CIU#20 practices: she said a mental health diagnosis was not required to find a student emotionally disturbed under IDEA and complained about disparate treatment (different students receiving psychiatric evaluations).
- At a Jan. 2014 meeting she distributed a fact sheet and emailed supervisors raising these concerns; CIU#20 supervisors maintained their state-approved procedures (discrepancy model) and required adherence to state plan.
- Following continued performance issues, Schellbach was given a Loudermill hearing and resigned May 15, 2014; she later sued alleging constructive discharge in violation of Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schellbach made a protected, good-faith report of wrongdoing under the Whistleblower Law | Schellbach contends she reported CIU#20’s violations of IDEA/state procedures (requiring mental health diagnoses; failing collaborative team determinations) | CIU#20 argues she identified no specific statutory/regulatory violation and merely disagreed with permissible evaluation methods | Held for CIU#20: Schellbach failed to identify an actual statutory/regulatory violation required to plead "wrongdoing" under Whistleblower Law |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence linking the report to retaliatory action to survive summary judgment | Schellbach asserts her reporting led to adverse employment action (constructive discharge) | CIU#20 contends adverse action stemmed from performance failures and failure to follow district-approved procedures | Held for CIU#20: no genuine issue of material fact because plaintiff did not prove report identified a legal violation; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridley School Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2012) (describing IDEA "child find" obligation)
- O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2001) (elements for Whistleblower Law prima facie case)
- Sukenik v. Township of Elizabeth, 131 A.3d 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (report must identify specific legal violation to constitute "wrongdoing")
- Todora v. Buskirk, 96 A.3d 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Wenger v. West Pennsboro Twp., 868 A.2d 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (non-moving party must produce sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural due process: pre-termination notice and hearing)