113 A.3d 362
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- In 2005 the Chambersburg Area School District (Board/CASD) appointed Catherine Dusman Assistant Superintendent; in 2007 the Board and Dusman executed a written contract (2007 contract) setting her term Aug. 1, 2004–July 31, 2008 and containing an automatic-renewal provision requiring 150 days' notice to not renew.
- The Board approved the 2007 contract at a public meeting on Sept. 26, 2007; the minutes stated "Senior Management Contracts as presented" were approved though the written contract was not attached to the minutes.
- CASD later passed a 2009 resolution purporting to renew Dusman (and an unsigned 2009 contract in the record purportedly would run July 1, 2009–June 30, 2013); CASD disputes execution of the 2009 contract.
- On March 13–14, 2013 the Board passed a resolution abolishing the assistant-superintendent position, creating a new director post, and notified Dusman it would not retain her as assistant superintendent.
- Dusman sued for mandamus and moved for peremptory judgment arguing CASD failed to give the statutorily required 150 days' notice before nonrenewal; the trial court granted peremptory judgment and ordered reinstatement; CASD appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dusman) | Defendant's Argument (CASD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dusman's term ended in Aug. 2013 or automatically renewed under 24 P.S. § 10-1077(b) | The 2007 contract controls; CASD failed to give 150 days' notice so the term automatically renewed | Term dates are set only by Board votes at public meetings; contracts not dispositive | The court held contract term is relevant and validly approved; regardless, CASD failed to give required 150-day notice and renewal occurred |
| Whether the 2007 contract is invalid for failure to comply with § 5-508 (recorded affirmative vote and attachments to minutes) | N/A (Dusman relied on contract and statutory renewal) | Contract invalid because not attached to the minutes as required by statute | The court held failure to attach does not invalidate the contract; Mullen permits proving approval by other solid evidence |
| Whether CASD's answer admissions (paras. 8, 9, 12, 15) were deemed admissions under Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c) | These averments are true and support judgment | Responses were proper denials (party lacked sufficient information) | The court of appeals found the trial court erred in deeming them admissions but the error was harmless because the rulings did not turn on those admissions |
| Whether peremptory judgment was inappropriate because material factual disputes (e.g., which contract controls) existed | N/A (Dusman argued no 150-day notice under either contract) | Material factual issues (existence/effect of 2009 contract) preclude peremptory judgment | The court held any factual dispute about which contract controls is immaterial because under either contract CASD failed to satisfy the 150-day notice requirement; peremptory judgment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullen v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of DuBois Area Sch. Dist., 259 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1969) (failure to record vote in minutes is directory only; approval may be inferred from solid proof)
- Shaler Area Sch. Dist. v. Salakas, 432 A.2d 165 (Pa. 1981) (mandamus issues: plaintiff must show clear legal right and corresponding duty)
- Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter, 437 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (peremptory judgment guided by summary judgment standards)
- Aiken v. Radnor Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 476 A.2d 1383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (peremptory judgment only where no triable issue of material fact exists)
- Strine v. Commonwealth, 894 A.2d 733 (Pa. 2006) (materiality defined for summary-judgment/peremptory-judgment purposes)