139 A.3d 358
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Ellis Jones, a tenured vocational/math teacher in the School District of Philadelphia, was accused in 2009 of making inappropriate, sexually themed and profane remarks to students based on a City Year letter and student statements.
- After internal investigations and conferences, the District sent an August 10, 2009 letter stating it would "recommend" immediate termination and notifying payroll to make salary adjustments; Jones’s pay ceased after the 2008–2009 school year.
- Jones requested a hearing; a one-member SRC hearing occurred on April 16, 2010; the SRC formally resolved to dismiss Jones on December 15, 2010, retroactive to August 14, 2009.
- The Secretary of Education (Sept. 13, 2011) reversed the SRC and reinstated Jones with back pay; on reconsideration the Acting Secretary (Nov. 5, 2013) reinstated Jones from Aug. 10, 2009 to Dec. 15, 2010 but sustained termination as of Dec. 15, 2010.
- Both the District and Jones appealed; the Commonwealth Court held the District violated School Code §1127 by effecting termination before the SRC passed a pre-hearing resolution and by failing to follow required formalities, and reversed the Acting Secretary, ordering reinstatement and remanding to calculate back pay (subject to mitigation).
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | District's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District complied with School Code dismissal procedures (timing, notice, attestation) | District terminated Jones administratively on Aug. 10, 2009 without required SRC resolution or proper attested notice, violating §1127 | The Aug. 10 letter was a suspension pending discharge; SRC later cured defects by ratifying dismissal on Dec. 15, 2010 | Court: District failed to follow §1127 (no pre-hearing SRC resolution; notice not attested); termination before SRC action was a fatal defect => reinstatement required |
| Whether pre-charge SRC resolution (i.e., board finding sufficient evidence before hearing) is required | Jones: Board must resolve and furnish charges before hearing (Patchel/Pittenger) | District: Patchel/Pittenger do not mandate pre-charge resolution; administrative initiation is acceptable so long as board later acts | Court: Patchel and Pittenger interpreted to require pre-hearing board resolution or equivalent; Acting Secretary’s interpretation affirmed |
| Whether pre-hearing SRC determination would violate due process by mixing prosecutor/adjudicator roles | Jones: not separately advanced on this point | District: a pre-hearing board resolution would create appearance of bias (Lyness) | Court: Lyness inapplicable to school boards; precedent allows board members to have prior knowledge/opinion so long as they can adjudicate fairly; no violation shown |
| Proper remedy for procedural defects (remand vs. reinstatement/back pay) | Jones: fatal defects require reversal and reinstatement with back pay | District: defects could be cured by remand or the board’s later ratification; remand appropriate | Court: Where dismissal occurred before required board action, defect is fatal (Swink); remedy is reinstatement with back pay (subject to mitigation); remand only for calculation of damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 605 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 1992) (appearance of non-objectivity in adjudicative body can be fatal)
- Kinniry v. Abington School District, 673 A.2d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (petitioner alleging due-process violation from delay must show prejudice/harm)
- McFerren v. Farrell Area School District, 993 A.2d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (three-element test for teacher immorality: act occurred, offends community morals, sets bad example)
- Central York School District v. Ehrhart, 387 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (substantial-evidence standard for board findings on immorality)
- Patchel v. Wilkinsburg School District, 400 A.2d 229 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (board must resolve to demote/dismiss and furnish a written statement of charges prior to hearing)
- Pittenger v. Wilkinsburg School District, 305 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (board ratification after administrative demotion without prior board action is improper; court described how board could have cured defect by pre-hearing resolution)
- Neshaminy School Dist. v. Neshaminy Fed’n of Teachers, 84 A.3d 391 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (statutory dismissal procedures must be strictly followed; deviations deny due process)
- West Shore School Dist. v. Bowman, 409 A.2d 474 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (no dismissal of tenured professional is valid unless district acts in full compliance with Code)
- In re Swink, 200 A. 200 (Pa. Super. 1938) (dismissing a teacher without prior hearing is a fatal statutory defect requiring reversal)