Watts v. Manheim Township School District
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 30
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- C.W., a middle-school student, spends alternating weeks with each parent under a court-ordered 50/50 joint legal and physical custody arrangement; both parents live within Manheim Township School District but on different bus routes.
- Historically the district transported many students to multiple locations, but beginning with the 2012–2013 budget it adopted a policy eliminating transportation to multiple residences to cut costs; the district continued to transport C.W. only to his mother’s residence.
- Watts sued seeking mandamus/declaratory relief and injunctive relief after the district refused to resume bussing to his residence; the trial court granted a permanent injunction ordering the district to resume service to both residences (limited to cases where an existing bus route could accommodate the student without extra cost or stops).
- The trial court relied on Wyland v. West Shore School District and on statutory interpretation of Sections 1361, 1362 and 1366 of the School Code to conclude a student with two legal residences within a district must be provided transportation servicing both residences or bus stops within 1.5 miles.
- On appeal the School District argued the Code only requires transporting a "resident pupil" (which it does), that implementation (one stop per pupil) falls within its discretion, and that Wyland is distinguishable; the Commonwealth Court affirmed the permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watts) | Defendant's Argument (School District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district must provide transportation to more than one residence within the district for a resident pupil with equal shared custody | A district that elects to provide free transportation must transport any "resident pupil" to and from school; if a child has two residences in the district, both must be served | Section 1361 merely requires transportation for a resident pupil; districts may set routes/stops and need not accommodate multiple in-district residences or parental convenience | Held: If a child has two legal residences in the district, the district must provide transportation that services both residences or a bus stop within 1.5 miles of each (affirmed) |
| Whether the district’s cost-cutting policy (one stop per pupil) was within its discretion | Policy cannot override statutory mandates; denying one residence denies free transportation for half the school days | District has broad discretion over routes, stops, and implementation; policy is a lawful exercise of that discretion | Held: District discretion does not permit ignoring the statutory duty; eliminating service to one of two in-district residences violated Sections 1361/1362 |
| Applicability of Wyland v. West Shore School District | Wyland supports that a child can have more than one legal residence and that districts must honor transport obligations to residents | Wyland involved different facts (residences in different districts, private school) and addressed a preliminary injunction; it is distinguishable | Held: Wyland’s reasoning is persuasive and applicable on the point that a pupil may have multiple residences for School Code purposes; trial court properly relied on it |
| Whether permanent injunctive relief was appropriate (clear right to relief) | Watts argued statutory text and precedent (Wyland, Thane) show a clear statutory violation warranting permanent relief | District argued no clear right because it is complying with Section 1361 by transporting the pupil and its policy is a legitimate exercise of discretion | Held: Watts demonstrated a clear right because Sections 1361/1362 require transportation to the pupil’s residence(s) (and bus-stop distance limits); permanent injunction was appropriate; appeal not frivolous so fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyland v. West Shore Sch. Dist., 52 A.3d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (held a child may be a resident pupil of more than one district and a district cannot disregard transportation duties to resident pupils)
- Unionville-Chadds Ford Sch. Dist. v. Rotteveel, 487 A.2d 109 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (interpreting "resident pupil" as any lawfully enrolled student who lives in the district)
- In re Residence Hearing Before Bd. of Sch. Dirs., Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist. (Thane), 744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000) ("resides" means factual abode; not limited to primary residence or domicile)
- Quasti v. N. Penn Sch. Dist., 907 A.2d 42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (statutory sections must be read together; school-board discretion is plenary unless abused)
- North Allegheny Sch. Dist. v. Gregory P., 687 A.2d 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (districts need not accommodate parental convenience by providing transportation for a residence outside the district; distinguishable on facts and context)