Riverview SD v. Riverview Education Association, PSEA/NEA
634 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Riverview School District fired special-education teacher Bernard Campbell after a coworker, Beth Funtal, complained that repeated unwanted attention (gifts, entering her locked classroom, late-night texts/emails, a detailed romantic letter, and physical proximity) made her uncomfortable and affected her ability to work.
- District investigated, placed Campbell on paid leave, converted to unpaid suspension (March 23, 2015–Dec. 31, 2015), then held a Loudermill hearing and dismissed him.
- The Association filed a grievance; an arbitrator found Campbell’s conduct inappropriate but not legally sexual harassment, reinstated him effective January 1, 2016, and denied relief for the unpaid suspension period.
- The District petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award; the trial court denied the petition.
- The District appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing the award (1) violates public policy against sexual harassment and (2) ignores independent School Code grounds for termination; the Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court order and remanded for clarification on whether the arbitrator’s award conflicts with public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (District) | Defendant's Argument (Association/Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s reinstatement violates public policy against workplace sexual harassment | Campbell’s cumulative conduct created a hostile-work environment and violated District policy, Title VII/PHRA, and educator ethics; reinstatement undermines that public policy | Arbitrator reasonably found the conduct was serious misconduct but not the kind of severe/pervasive sexual harassment that public policy requires termination for; award draws its essence from the CBA | Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court order and remanded for the trial court to clarify whether the arbitrator’s factual/legal conclusions conflict with the public policy exception to arbitration deference |
| Whether the arbitrator misapplied sexual-harassment law by isolating incidents rather than assessing the totality of the circumstances | Aggregating incidents shows severity/frequency sufficient for hostile-work-environment under Title VII/EEOC and PHRA standards | Arbitrator considered incidents but concluded none involved groping, quid pro quo, or other unlawful sex-based mistreatment; discipline up to suspension was appropriate | Court ordered remand because the trial court did not analyze whether the arbitrator improperly compartmentalized the incidents and whether that undermines public policy |
| Whether arbitration award is within essence of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) | Award fails public-policy override and thus should be vacated despite CBA deference | Award is a permissible construction of the CBA; courts must defer unless award plainly conflicts with a well-defined public policy | Court reaffirmed application of the essence test but remanded to apply the public-policy exception factors (nature of conduct; whether policy implicated; risk of undermining policy) |
| Whether independent statutory grounds (School Code §1122(a)) justify upholding termination regardless of arbitrator | School Code provides separate bases for termination (e.g., immorality) that the arbitrator ignored | Arbitration system resolves contract discipline; but statutory grounds may inform the public-policy analysis | Court remanded for the trial court to consider whether statutory grounds change the public-policy analysis and the propriety of the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit #7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA/NEA, 939 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2007) (adopts public-policy exception to arbitration deference)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 33, Local 934, 956 A.2d 477 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (recognizes public policy against workplace sexual harassment)
- Fraternal Order of Transit Police v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 114 A.3d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (explains the essence test for reviewing arbitration awards)
- Slippery Rock Univ. of Pa. v. Association of Pa. State College & University Faculty, 71 A.3d 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (discusses when an arbitration award must be vacated under the essence test)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (defines sexual harassment principles under Title VII)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural due-process requirement for termination hearings)