J. Cook v. Chambersburg Area S.D. and Shippensburg Area S.D.
97 A.3d 419
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Joyce Cook taught Business Data Processing (BDP) at the Franklin County Career‑Tech Center for ~29 years; Career‑Tech served students from Chambersburg Area SD (CASD) and Shippensburg Area SD (SASD).
- CASD and SASD historically also operated their own business education courses; enrollment in the Career‑Tech BDP program declined sharply in the early 2000s.
- For 2006–2007 the Districts stopped sending students to the Career‑Tech BDP program; the Career‑Tech Center closed the BDP program and suspended Cook effective June 30, 2006; Cook took a medical sabbatical for 2006–2007 and later applied to openings in CASD and SASD for 2007–2008.
- Cook applied for multiple business‑education openings in both districts but was not hired; PSEA notified the districts that Cook asserted rights under the Transfer Between Entities Act (24 P.S. § 11‑1113).
- Cook sued the Districts under Section 1113, claiming the Districts’ decision to resume educating their business students triggered the Act and entitled her (as a suspended teacher) to placement in the hiring pool and preference for vacancies.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Districts, concluding no "transfer" of a program or class occurred; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act applies when students are taken back by districts causing a sending program to close | Cook: taking back students caused Career‑Tech to eliminate the BDP program and suspend her, so she should be placed in the Section 1113(b.1) suspended‑teacher pool | Districts: no program or class was transferred as a unit; districts simply enrolled students in their preexisting business courses | Held: No transfer occurred; Act not triggered because program/class was not transferred as a unit |
| Effect of the 1991 amendment (adding § 1113(b.1)) — does it eliminate the prerequisite of a transfer? | Cook: § 1113(b.1) broadened protections and abrogated Hahn, so suspended teachers need not show a unit transfer to gain pool rights | Districts: 1991 amendment did not eliminate the transfer requirement; b.1 applies only where a transfer of programs/classes occurred | Held: The court read (a) and (b.1) together and held a transfer remains a prerequisite for Act protections; Hahn’s transfer requirement stands |
| Whether Cook’s lack of Cooperative Education certification or her sabbatical preclude relief | Cook: argued entitlement for any positions she was certified to teach despite Cooperative Ed certification gap | Districts: Cook wasn’t certified for the new Cooperative Ed post and was on sabbatical when applying, undermining pool status | Held: Court agreed trial court erred to the extent it treated lack of Coop certification as dispositive for all openings, but affirmed overall because no transfer occurred; court did not decide sabbatical argument as transfer ruling was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hahn v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., 571 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (defined "transfer" as carrying or taking a class/program from one place to another and held no transfer where receiving district already offered same classes)
- Allegheny Intermediate Unit #3 Educ. Ass'n v. North Hills Sch. Dist., 624 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (interpreted 1991 amendment § 1113(b.1) to require receiving districts who assumed program responsibility to hire from the suspended‑teacher pool, and held b.1 did not limit relief to vacancies directly related to the transferred class)
- Ertel v. Patriot‑News Co., 674 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 1996) (summary judgment standard: failure to produce evidence on essential issue establishes no genuine issue of material fact)