206 A.3d 1238
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Ellis Jones, a Philadelphia vocational/math teacher, was terminated in December 2010 after an investigation into alleged classroom statements; the termination was later held a nullity by this Court (Jones I) and he was ordered reinstated with backpay.
- The Commonwealth Court (Jones I) remanded to the Secretary of Education to determine damages, taking into account the duty to mitigate.
- The District offered reinstatement in November 2016; Jones declined, asserting the School Reform Commission (SRC) must act publicly under the Sunshine Act and disputing the validity of the offer.
- Hearings on mitigation and backpay were held before the Secretary; the Secretary awarded Jones $4,303 for lost compensation for 2014–2015 and limited the damage period to November 4, 2016 (the District’s first offer), using the master’s+30 salary schedule.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court vacated the Secretary’s award and remanded, holding the Secretary’s mitigation finding lacked substantial evidentiary support and requiring recalculation of damages through the date of the District’s first reinstatement offer, with accumulated leave and 6% interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of damages / mitigation | Jones argued he mitigated with continuous employment (substitute, charter, DCIU) and is entitled to full lost compensation less earnings | District argued Jones failed to mitigate (only had jobs two years), so damages should be limited | Court held Secretary’s finding that Jones did not search was not supported; District failed to meet burden to show substantially comparable positions were available; Jones entitled to full lost earnings less actual earnings; remand to recalc damages |
| Salary schedule and period for damages calculation | Jones argued he should be paid at doctorate / senior career teacher scale through June 2017 retirement | District argued only master’s schedule applies and damages stop at reinstatement offer | Court affirmed Secretary’s use of master’s+30 schedule for 2009–2016 and that damages period ends at the District’s first offer of reinstatement, but remanded to recalculate amounts and interest |
| Effect of District’s reinstatement procedure / Sunshine Act | Jones argued reinstatement letters were void because SRC did not act in public, so he was never validly reinstated | District argued court-ordered reinstatement obviated SRC action and letters valid; District could continue disciplinary process | Court held SRC action was not required because this Court had already ordered reinstatement; District’s offer was valid and Sunshine Act did not apply |
| Administrative omissions (enforcement, expunction, evidentiary issues) | Jones argued Secretary failed to address enforcement of reinstatement, records expunction, hearsay/inadmissible evidence | District argued issues were moot or not properly before Secretary; evidentiary objections insufficient | Court found stay/supersedeas and enforcement issues moot at decision time; expunction not before Secretary so waived on appeal; did not reach hearsay challenge because remand required on mitigation/calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Jones, 139 A.3d 358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (remanding for reinstatement and damages calculation)
- Merrell v. Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 51 A.3d 286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (duty to mitigate requires honest, good-faith efforts; employer bears burden to show comparable work was available)
- Coble v. Sch. Dist. of Metal Twp., 116 A.2d 113 (Pa. Super. 1955) (ordinary breach-of-employment-contract damages rule: lost wages less earnings)
- Somerset Area Sch. Dist. v. Starenchak, 599 A.2d 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (employee not required to relocate to mitigate)
- Princess Hotels Int’l v. Hamilton, 473 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 1984) (burden on defendant to show plaintiff could have minimized damages)
- Delliponti v. Deangelis, 681 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 1996) (if defendant fails to prove mitigation, plaintiff recovers full damages less earnings)
- Burke v. Israel, 399 A.2d 779 (Pa. Super. 1979) (findings unsupported by evidence are not binding on appeal)