Pleasant Valley School District v. Schaeffer
31 A.3d 1241
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Schaeffer, a tenured teacher, left Lehighton SD for Pleasant Valley SD in 2004 and was later arrested in 2005 for misconduct with a student.
- Schaeffer was suspended indefinitely by Pleasant Valley pending Department of Education (DOE) investigation.
- DOE investigation concluded with ARD program, dismissal of charges, and expungement of the record by June 2007; certificate suspension retroactively from 2005 to 2008.
- Schaeffer notified Pleasant Valley of reinstatement in 2007; district delayed reinstatement due to pending DOE investigation into certificate status.
- DOE later reinstated Schaeffer’s certificate in July 2008; district refused reinstatement, claiming abandonment of position in December 2008.
- Grievance arbitration proceeded focused on whether Schaeffer abandoned employment and thus was not entitled to a hearing; arbitrator ruled in Schaeffer’s favor and ordered reinstatement with back pay; district appealed arguing public policy and that abandonment was not the issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public policy can revise the arbitration issue submitted | Schaeffer argues public policy cannot be used to alter the arbitrator’s defined issue | Schaeffer’s district contends public policy is implicit and can guide reconsideration | Public policy cannot revise the arbitrator’s submission; remand improper |
| Whether the public policy exception may be raised for the first time on appeal | Schaeffer maintains the exception must be grounded in arbitrator-found facts | District argues exception may be invoked at appeal stage | Public policy exception constrained to facts and issues framed for arbitration; cannot be raised post hoc |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by addressing misconduct rather than abandonment | Arbitrator limited his inquiry to abandonment; misconduct not submitted | District did not present misconduct to arbitration | Arbitrator acted within the submitted issue; misuse of public policy to substitute misconduct for abandonment rejected |
| Whether the award can be sustained given protective procedural safeguards for tenured teachers | Procedural safeguards required before dismissal; arbitration cannot substitute for hearings | If abandonment, due process not triggered; but misconduct would require hearing | Cannot bypass School Code procedures; public policy not to reinstate without proper hearing |
| Whether the court can remand to gather more findings on public policy | Remand was improper because issues were not framed for arbitration | Remand necessary to assess public policy impact | Remand not allowed; court must enforce arbitrator’s scope as submitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland IU #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (well-defined public policy limits on enforcing arbitration awards)
- Sley System Garages v. Transport Workers Union of America, 406 Pa. 370 (1962) (arbitrator’s authority limited by submission terms)
- Neshaminy Federation of Teachers v. Neshaminy School District, 501 Pa. 534 (Pa. 1983) (tenured-employee dismissal requires procedural safeguards; entitlements safeguarded)
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joint Bargaining Committee of Pennsylvania Social Services Union, 82 Pa. Cmwlth. 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (remand limited to issues submitted to arbitrator)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA-NEA, 977 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (public policy exception cases requiring explicit factual basis)