E. Jackson v. Shikellamy SD
2267 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Ernest Jackson, a non-tenured/temporary high‑school principal, opened and searched student lockers without prior notice and routinely did so; on Oct. 16, 2014 he removed a student’s bag from a locker, placed it in the cafeteria unattended, and later a cafeteria worker found a knife in the bag.
- Jackson admitted he frequently searched unlocked lockers without notifying students and did not keep required records of searches.
- At an Oct. 27, 2014 student disciplinary (expulsion/suspension) hearing Jackson testified under oath that he searched the locker and found the knife there; later, at his dismissal hearing, witnesses said his earlier testimony was false (he had removed the bag and the knife was found in the cafeteria).
- The School Board charged Jackson (including improper locker searches and false testimony), conducted a hearing, found multiple violations including willful neglect and immorality, and terminated his employment.
- The trial court affirmed dismissal as to three charges (two relating to improper locker searches and one to false testimony) but rejected or found insufficient other charges; Jackson appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: (1) substantial evidence supported that Jackson conducted improper locker searches in violation of policy and PA. code, (2) he gave false testimony at the expulsion hearing, (3) his conduct constituted willful neglect of duties, and (4) the notice formalities Jackson complained of did not apply to temporary employees.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | School District's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were locker searches improper / supported by substantial evidence? | He had reasonable suspicion because lockers were unlocked and students were told to keep lockers secured; minimal expectation of privacy. | Searches violated 22 Pa. Code §12.14 and District Policy 226 because students weren’t notified and Jackson lacked objective reasonable suspicion. | Held: Substantial evidence supports that searches were improper; no individualized reasonable suspicion and scope exceeded permissible search. |
| Did Jackson provide false testimony at the expulsion hearing and was dismissal charge invalid because there was no stenographic record? | He read a prepared statement that didn’t specify where the knife was found; lack of an accurate transcript requires dismissal of the false‑testimony charge. | Witnesses who attended the expulsion hearing and the dismissal hearing testified Jackson falsely said he found the knife at the locker; record requirement serves the student, not other witnesses. | Held: Substantial evidence supports the false‑testimony finding; missing stenographic/transcript does not require dismissal of the charge. |
| Do the proven acts constitute "willful neglect of duties" sufficient for dismissal under Section 1122(a)? | Even if searches were improper, conduct was not the sort of serious or persistent misconduct required; the end (removing a knife) justified action. | Jackson intentionally disregarded clear policy requiring notice/opportunity to be present; false testimony was likewise intentional; willful neglect established. | Held: Jackson’s repeated, deliberate policy violations and false testimony constitute willful neglect; dismissal is lawful. |
| Was the Notice defective because it lacked the Board president’s signature and secretary’s attestation (Section 1127)? | Section 1127’s signing/attestation requirement applies and its absence invalidates the dismissal. | Section 1127 applies only to tenured/permanent employees; temporary employees are governed by the Local Agency Law requiring reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. | Held: Section 1127 does not apply to temporary professional employees; Local Agency Law procedures satisfied — Notice was adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cass, 709 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1998) (school canine‑sniff locker searches require neutral guidelines and reasonable grounds)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985) (school search reasonableness: justified at inception and reasonable in scope)
- Flickinger v. Lebanon School District, 898 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (willful neglect defined as intentional disregard of duties)
- McFerren v. Farrell Area School District, 993 A.2d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (picayune‑offense standard applied in tenured‑employee discipline cases)
- Lauer v. Millville Area School District, 657 A.2d 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (tenure protections limit dismissal to serious causes)
- Hertzler v. West Shore School District, 78 A.3d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (negligent performance must be serious to justify dismissal)
- Monaghan v. Board of School Directors of Reading School District, 618 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (upholding dismissal if at least one alleged ground is proven)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 253 A.2d 276 (Pa. 1969) (evidence from unlawful search is not admissible to justify the search)