Hertzler v. West Shore School District
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 407
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Karen Hertzler, principal at New Cumberland Middle School, was investigated after a teacher accused her of harassment and retaliation; investigators found insufficient evidence and sent Hertzler a letter stating the investigations were concluded.
- Superintendent Jemry Small confronted Hertzler after learning she told a faculty member she was "unfounded" and suspended her for three days for breaching confidentiality and violating the Administrative Performance Plan and the Educator’s Code of Conduct.
- The School Board upheld the suspension, finding Hertzler was on notice that the investigatory process — including its outcome — was confidential and that her disclosure showed poor judgment and could chill future complaints.
- Hertzler appealed to the trial court, which affirmed; she then appealed to the Commonwealth Court contending the District produced no policy or specific directive requiring that an exoneration remain secret.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed the record and concluded the District failed to prove the existence of a policy or directive that the outcome of an internal investigation must be kept secret, and that Hertzler did not otherwise undermine the investigation.
- The court reversed the trial court, vacated the suspension, and remanded for back pay and benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the School District proved a policy or directive requiring targets to keep the outcome of an internal investigation secret | Hertzler: No written policy or directive existed; she received no instruction to keep the exoneration secret | District: Investigators told Hertzler the process was confidential and confidentiality necessarily included the outcome | Held: District failed to prove such a policy or directive; no notice that outcome must be secret |
| Whether Hertzler’s disclosure violated confidentiality applicable to the investigation | Hertzler: Confidentiality related to the investigation while ongoing, not to post-investigation outcomes | District: Confidentiality statements to witnesses and to Hertzler encompassed the entire process, including results | Held: Confidentiality rationale concerned protecting the investigation; record lacks evidence confidentiality extended to outcome after conclusion |
| Whether disclosure harmed the investigatory process or showed conduct warranting suspension | Hertzler: She did not identify complainant, influence witnesses, or otherwise interfere | District: Disclosure could chill future complainants and reflected poor judgment | Held: No evidence Hertzler interfered or that speculative chilling justified discipline |
| Allocation of burden of proof in disciplinary suspension (non‑termination) | Hertzler: District bears burden to prove existence of policy and violation; she need not show superintendent acted arbitrarily | District: Asserted Hertzler had burden to mitigate and justify disclosure | Held: District bears burden to show employee knew policy and willfully disobeyed; it failed to meet that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- McFerren v. Farrell Area School District, 993 A.2d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (school district must show employee knew of policy used to justify disciplinary action)
- Kaplan v. School District of Philadelphia, 130 A.2d 672 (Pa. 1957) (Section 1124 does not govern disciplinary suspensions; districts retain inherent authority to discipline employees)
- Rike v. Secretary of Education, 494 A.2d 1388 (Pa. 1985) (disciplinary power accompanies hiring authority; non‑termination discipline reviewed under Local Agency Law)
- Bonatesta v. Northern Cambria School District, 48 A.3d 552 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (appellate review standard for school board decisions where trial court takes no new evidence)