171 A.3d 334
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Jared Katz, a ten-year teacher and union advocate for Neshaminy School District, was fired after the superintendent alleged he created a hostile work environment and made lewd statements to students; grievance arbitration reinstated him with a 20-day unpaid suspension and required reasonable sexual-harassment training.
- Arbitrator found Katz sexually harassed a co-teacher through continuous, sexually explicit, non-physical comments (credited the co-teacher’s testimony as compelling and credible) and concluded the conduct violated the District’s harassment policies and the Professional Conduct Code for educators.
- Arbitrator rejected some charges (including twerking-related statements to students and deliberate lying during investigation) as not proven or not shown to be intentional, and therefore did not discipline on those counts.
- District petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to vacate the arbitration award; the court vacated it, holding the award violated the dominant public policy against sexual harassment.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court applied the three-prong public-policy exception to arbitral awards (identify conduct; determine whether implicated policy is well-defined and dominant; determine whether the award poses an unacceptable risk of undermining that policy) and affirmed vacation of the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award violates the public policy against sexual harassment so as to be vacated | Arbitrator’s 20-day suspension plus mandatory training is a calibrated, reasonable response to non-physical, unintentional harassment and does not undermine public policy; termination is not required in all cases | Reinstating Katz to the classroom despite findings of continuous harassment (occurring in front of students) poses an unacceptable risk and demonstrates tolerance of sexual harassment, undermining the District’s and Commonwealth’s anti-harassment obligations | Affirmed: award vacated — reinstatement with only suspension/training would undermine the dominant public policy against sexual harassment |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., 52 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2012) (arbitral reinstatement of an employee who committed egregious sexual harassment violated public policy)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educ. Support Pers. Ass'n, 72 A.3d 755 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (reinstatement of an employee whose on-the-job drug use endangered students violated public policy)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (arbitral reinstatement following theft did not undermine public policy where mitigating factors reduced risk of recurrence)