IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela White, :

Appellant :

: v. : No. 308 C.D. 2018
: ARGUED: June 3, 2019 School District of Philadelphia :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: June 25, 2019

Angela White appeals from the February 5 , 2018 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Trial Court) denying Ms. White’s appeal
of a decision of the School District of Philadelphia School Reform Commission ( Commission). The Commission adopted a Hearing Officer’s recommendation to
dismiss Ms. White from her employment with the School District of Philadelphia ( School District) for improper conduct pursuant to Section 514 of the Public School Code of 1949 ( School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended
, 24 P.S. § 5

- 514

. 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Trial Court’s Order.

1 Section 514 of the School Code stat es that a school district “ shall after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right at any time to remove any of its officers, employees, or appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct. ” 24 P.S. § 5

- 514.2 Background
Ms. White w orked for School District from 2005 until May 12, 2016

. 2 Most recently, Ms. White was Program Coordinator for School District’s Office of
Athletics. One of Ms. Whit e’ s responsibilities in that position was to work with Athlete Health Organization (AHO), a Philadelphia

- based non

- profit organization that provides free health screening s to student athletes in partnership with School
Di strict. Ms. White worked wit h AHO to find physicians , select event location s, and coordinate screening s for School District students

. I n 2016, School District’s I nspector General began investigati ng the finances
of the Office of Athletics

. As part of the investigation, t he Inspecto r General examined expenditures from bank accounts maintained by the Office of Athletics
and its Executive Director
, Robert Coleman , who was Ms. White’s immediate supervisor

. 3 The investigation revealed that
, between April 4, 2013 and July 10, 2013 , Mr. Coleman signed and issued four $2,500 checks to Ms. White
, paying her a total of $10,000 from two School District accounts

. Tw o of the checks were drawn
from an account titled “ P hiladelphia Publi c League , ” and two of the checks were drawn from an ac count titled “ P IAA District 12

. ” 4 The Office of Athletics
maintains b oth accounts , which contain funds for various athletic activities for
School District students

. Ms. White accepted and personally endorsed each of the

2 Ms. White was laid off for a two

- year period between 2011 and 2013.

3 As a result of the investigation, School District dismissed Mr. Coleman for misappropriating School District funds

.

4 “PIAA” is the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association

.3

four checks for deposit. 5 School District made no wage deductions from those payments , and Ms. White did not report the $10,000 she received as income to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

. As a result of the investigation, School District reassigned Ms . White to its
Records Office

. On March 30, 2016, Chief Academic Officer Susan Logan met
with Ms. White and instructed her that, as of that date
, Ms. White was prohibited
from hav ing any further contact or involvement with the Office of Athletics. Ms. Logan also sent an e

- mail to all School District athletic directors and the PIAA
, stating that Ms. White would no longer be conducting any business on behalf of
School District or the athletics department

. On April 5, 2016, Ms. White e

- mailed Andrew M. Rosen, School District’s
E mployee R elations D eputy , and inform ed him that she was working part

- time for
AHO as its Executive Administrator and was preparing for two health screening

event s in partnership with Sc hool District. In th e e

- mail, Ms. White also asked Mr.
Rosen if she could conti nue work ing with AHO with the help of a School District

5 The “memo” line s o n the four check s contained the following handwritten note s :

 On check number 5884, dated April 4, 2013, the memo line state d
, “January to June 2013 Manage and Develop Social Media & Web Site [sic] for AHO/PIAA Sports Physi cal.”

 On check number 1189, dated May 6, 2013, the memo line state d
, “COORDINATOR FOR SPORTS PHYSICALS (1/2 [ I llegible]).”

 On check number 1190 , dated May 20, 2013, the memo line state d
, “BALANCE DUE TO COORDINATOR FOR SPORTS PHYSICALS.”

 On check number 1013, dated July 10, 2013, the memo line state d
, “[Illegible] from AHO Sports Phys[ical].”
Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 10/28/16, Ex. D

- 1, at 4

- 7.4

liaison before and after work hours

. Mr. Rosen replied that he could not discuss
the matter with Ms. White.
Ms. L ogan began monitor ing Ms. White’ s School District e

- mails to ensure
that she was complying with the directive to cease all involvement with t he Offic e of Athletics

. While monitoring Ms. White’s e

- mails, Ms. Logan discovered that
Ms. White was still conducting business for AHO during School District work
hours

. On May 5, 2016 , Ms. Log an met with Ms. White and Mr. Rosen. During
th e meeting, Ms. White admitted that she had accepted four checks totaling $10,000 from Mr. Coleman and deposited t hem into her personal bank account

. She stated that she believed she was entitled to the money because the payments

were for work she performed for AHO and she should get paid

. Ms. White also
stated that she believed her work for AHO was different from her work for School
District. Ms. White then described the scope of her work for AHO to Ms. Log an. Based on Ms. White’s description, Ms. Logan determined that Ms. White’s AHO
work was part of her responsibilities as Program Coordinator for t he Office of
Athletics and that Ms. White had performed work for AHO during School District
work hours , contr ary to Ms. Logan’s earlier directive. By letter dated May 12, 2016, School District notified Ms. White that it was recommending her termination from employment for improper ly recei ving School
District funds and for intentionally violating a School District directive

. In the letter, School District stated:

The ongoing investigation uncovered that in 2013, while an employee of [School] District, you were paid $10,000 in four (4) separate ch ec ks for wor k you did as part of your work.5 It was also learned that since your transfer from the Office of Athletics and the direction to have no contact with [School] District’ s athletics program [] , you continued to have continuing involvement in the program during your [School] District work day.

. . . Employees cannot accept payment for work done by checks paid on office accounts. These payments were titled either PIAA District 12 or The Philadelphia Public League. They were all signed by the former Executive Director [, Mr. Coleman]. Paych ecks received by [School] District employees ar e not signed by their managers. They do not get issued without deductions. You admitted that you did not receive a 1099 as would an independent contractor. [School] Distr ict has legal obligations when makin g payments regarding wages. Ms. Logan determined that your a cc eptance of these payments was not proper and a cl ear attemp t to receive payment improperly

.
The e [

- ] m ails reviewed cl early show that you were working a good deal of time on AHO matters after being directed not to do that. The positive nature of the AHO mission does not excuse the insubordinate behavior by you.
Based on Ms. Logan ’ s findings, the School District has chosen to terminate your employment for improper receipt of [School] Distri ct funds and intentionally violating a directive.
N.T., 10/28/16, Ex. D

- 1, at 1

- 2. Ms. White appealed School District’s decision and exercised her right to a n evidentiary hearing before the Commission, which took place on October 28, 2016

. Ms. White did not appear at the hearing
, instead choosing to send her legal representative , Stephanie J. Mensing, Esquire, to cross

- examine School District’s6

witness and present argument on Ms. White’s behalf

. 6 Ms. Logan testified for
School District. Following the he aring, t he Hearing Officer issued Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and recommended Ms. White’s dismissal from employment

. The Hearing Officer determined that School District presented substantial evidence to support Ms. White’s dis missal for improp er conduct under Section 514 of the
School Code

. Specifically, t he Hearing Officer concluded :

[Ms. White] received and deposited four (4) checks from School District funds, for work she was already being paid to do and not entitled [sic] to any additional payment. Said action is a willful violation of and a failure to comply with the school laws of this Commonwealth or otherwise improper conduct, constituting just cause for dismissal pursuant to [Section 514 of the ] School Code.
[Ms. Wh ite] was made fully aware of the directive to cease all future involvement with any Athletics Department activities and [she] willfully failed or refused to comply. Said action constitutes improper conduct and just cause for dismissal, pursuant to [Sectio n 514 of the ] School Code

. . . . Comm’n’s Conclusion s of Law Nos. 12 , 13. On April 27, 2017, after an independent review of the record, the
Commission approved the Hearing Officer’s recommendation to dis miss Ms.
White , effective April 27, 2017

. The Commission notified Ms. White of its decision by letter dated May 24, 2017.

6 At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Mensing stated that “it was [Ms. White’s] decision not to attend today” a nd that Ms. White “consent[ed] to having this hearing proceed without her being present.” N.T., 10/28/16, at 5. After questioning Ms. Mensing, the Hearing Officer stat ed: “It is my understanding that Ms. White has given [Ms. Me nsing] the authority to re present her with her not being present and any rights [Ms. White] may be giving up because of that, that she is in a position to waive those rights.” Id. at 7.7

On June 20, 2017, Ms. White appealed to the Trial Court
, asserting that the Commission’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence

. On February 2 , 2018, after argume nt by the parties
, the Trial Court denied Ms. W hite’s appeal.
The Trial Court conclud ed that : (1) Ms. White engaged in improper conduct under
Section 514 of the School Code ; and (2) the record contained substantial evidence to support the Commission’s fi nding of improper conduct

. In so ruling , the Trial
Court noted:
Ms. White did not appear at the [Commission] hearing to offer any testimony to contradict that of the Sch ool District. . . . This Court is therefore limited to reviewing the evidence and testimony offered by the School District to determine whether a reasonable mind might accept that evidence and testimony as adequate to support the [Commission’s] factual findings. Trial Ct. Op.
, 9/13/18 , at 8 (internal citation omitted)

. Ms. White now appeals to
this Court

. 7 Analysis On appeal, Ms. White asserts that School District failed to establish by
substantial evidence that: (1) Ms. White knew that the four checks at issue derived
from School District funds ; (2) Ms. White’s work for AHO was part of her School
District res ponsibilities in the athletics department ; and (3) Ms. White knew that Ms. Logan’ s directive prohibited her from continuing to work for AHO.
Our Court has defined s ubstantial evidence as “ such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ” Ray v. Civil

7 This Court will not disturb a school district’s employment decision “ unless the record reveals a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law, or that [the] necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. ” Phillis v. B d. of Sch

. Dir s. , 617 A.2d 830, 832 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).8

Serv. Comm ’ n , 131 A.3d 1012, 1023 (Pa. C mwlth. 2016) (citation omitted)

. The
Commission , as the factfinder, “ is the ulti mate arbiter of questions of credibility and the weight to be given conflicting evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). As such, a
revie wing court may not re

- weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for th at
of the factfinder

. Id

. When performing a substantial evidence analysis, this Court
must view the evidence “ in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed
before the fact [] finder .” Agostino v. T wp. of Collier , 968 A.2d 258, 269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
1. Improper Receipt of S chool District Funds First, Ms. White a sserts that S chool District failed to establish that she knew
the four checks at issue were dr awn from School District funds. Ms. White contends that because the name “School District of Philadelphia” did not appear on any of the checks, she had no way of knowing that the funds derived from School
District funds

. We conclude that the record belies this claim.
Each of the four checks w as drawn from an account identified as either

“ Philadelphia Public League ” or “ PIAA District 12 .” The record shows that both
of these accounts we re maintained by School District’s Office of Athletics , where
Ms. White worked

. Ms. Logan explained the nature of the accounts as follows :
The Public School League is

. . . a legacy name from about 85 years ago. It’s called the Philadelphia Public School League, but it is congruent

– the nomenclature notwithstanding, it’ s the Philadelphia School District account for funds for athletics.
In addition, the PIAA funds are rece ived from the School District, from School District schools, from District charter schools, which are state

- f unded schools, and archdiocese schools. There are a small number of independent schools that also participate.9

N.T., 10/28/16, at 16. According to Ms. Logan, “ t he funds [in both of th e se accounts] come [] from schools, charter schools, archdiocese schools and independent schools [with] in [School District].” Id. at 46. Ms. Logan also testified that it is “ well known ” that “Philadelphia Public League ” is synonymous with School District. She testified that, as Program Coordinator for the Office of Athletics, Ms. White w ould have been aware that

“ the Philadelphia Public League . . . is the School District of Philadelphi a. ” Id. at
30. Ms. Logan further testified that “ [i]n [Ms. White ’ s] duties as [Program C] oordinator for athletics, I can ’ t imagin e any scenario where she wouldn’ t know ”
that a check dra wn from an account identified as “ Philadelphia Public League ” was dr a wn from School District funds. Id. at 37. Significantly, Ms. White presented no evidence to contest Ms. Logan’s testimony. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Ms. White did not report the $10,000 she
received as income to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Although Ms. White

was not discharged on that basis
, her failure to report the money as income further supports the Commission’s finding that Ms. White knew the actual source of the

money and was attempting to conceal it

. W e conclude that Ms. Logan’s uncontroverted testimony , as well as the
circumstances of Ms. White’s job position
, support s the Commission’s finding that
Ms. White knew that the checks at issue were drawn from School District funds. Second, Ms. White asse r ts that School District failed to establish that the
checks at issue constituted payment s for work for which she was already compensated via her School District salary

. Ms. White contends that the checks

were payment s for independent work she performed fo r AHO , not for School10

District , and that her AHO work was separate from her School District work

. We reject this claim.
The record shows that t he checks at issue were not drawn from an AHO

account , but from two accounts controlled by S chool District and maintained by
Ms. White’s supervisor , Mr. Coleman

. The fact that Mr. Coleman

– and not any representative of AHO

– signed each of the checks belies Ms. White’s claim that
she believed the payments were compensation for “independent work” she performed for AHO. In fact, Ms. Logan testified that AHO reported to School
District that Ms. White had w orked for AHO on a volunteer basis only :
Q. Did you ever contact AHO to find out if Ms. White had a legitimate p osition with them?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. What did you find out?

A. . . . [T] he only thing that we were able to determine was that she volunteered for [AHO] a t some point. Those were the exact words that [AHO] used

. N.T., 10/28/16, at 29 (emphasis added)

. Finally
, Ms. Logan testified that the work Ms . White performed for AHO was “congruent with her job duties” as Program Coordinator for the Office of
Athletics

. Id. at 26. Ms. Logan bas ed this conclusion on Ms. White’ s own description of her AHO work, as well as on Ms. Logan’s pe rsonal knowledge of
Ms. White’ s job responsibilities in the Office of Athletics

. This uncontroverted evidence supports the Commission’s finding that Ms. White accepted $10,000 from her supervisor for work that School District was already pa ying her to do.11

Therefore , we conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that Ms. White improperly received School
District funds when she accepted the four $2,500 checks from her supervisor and deposit ed them into her personal bank account

.

2. Intentional Disregard of School District Directive
Ms. White asserts that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the
Commission’s conclusion that she intentionally disre g arded a School District
d irective. Specifically, she claims that the factual findings regarding her c ontact
with AHO following her transfer to the Records Office are “ unrelated to any allegation that [Ms. White] violated a directive to cease contact and involvement with [School D istrict’s] Athletics Department during her workday at [School District]

. ” Ms. White’s Br. at 12. We disagree. Ms. Logan testified that during her March 30, 2016 meeting with Ms. White,

“ when she mentioned her work with [AHO], I acknowledged that she worked with [AHO]. ” N.T., 10/28/16, at 34. However, Ms. Logan e xplained that as long as
Ms. White remained a School District employee, she could no longer perform
work for AHO with regard to athletics department matters

. Specifi cally, Ms. Logan told Ms. White “ that she was entitled to work outside of her workday , but
that because she work [ed] for the School District of Philadelphia as an athletic representative, she was no longer going to be able to do that

. ” Id. (emphasis
added ). Ms. Logan further testified:

[D] uring the meeting we discussed this, because of the disposition of her employment, she was going to have an issue

– she was going to have to make a determination because my directive was really clear in that she could not perform any duties as a representative of the athletics department and that decision was something that was very clear from my standpoint and those were actions that she was going to12

have to take because she could not represent any portion of the athle tics department here. So she has no utility to AHO if she is not representing the athletics department of the School District.

Id. at 35 (emphasis added)

. The evidence of record establishes that not only did Ms. White continue to have contact with AHO during the workday, but such contact directly related to athletics department matters

. Ms. Logan testified that Ms. White sent 6 to 10 e

mails from her School District e

- mail account “ to different organizations and to representatives of AHO during work hours. ” Id. at 31

- 33 , 42. According to Ms. Logan , [t] he e

- mails were between the March 30th time that I spoke with [Ms. White] and the May 5th time that I spoke with her. Those were the times that we monitored the e

- mails specifically related to my directive not to perform any functions or to make any representations for the athletics department of the School District.

Id. at 32. Ms. Logan testified that the e

- mails “ related to not just AHO but other
business that was bein g conducted during the day in reference to . . . [t] he Schoo l District athletics department.” Id. at 48. Ms. Logan concluded , based on her
review of the e

- mails, that Ms. White had performed work for AHO during her
School District work hours.
It is al so evident from the record that
, even after Ms. White’s transfer from the Office of Athletics, the health screening events she plann ed for AHO were for
School District athletes. For example, in her April 5, 2016 e

- mail to Mr. Rosen, Ms. White explained two of the events as follows:
We have been preparing for our sports screening event scheduled for June 4th. There is also another screening event scheduled in Camden, NJ the week following as we ar e taking this model nationally. Attached is the flyer a nd the forms that I updated that were sent to13

Philadelphia Public, Charter, and Catholic schools interested in participating in the event. The forms will be returned back to the [School District] Office of Athletics by April 29th for me to get them back t o the AHO Volunteer Physicians to be prescreened.
N.T., 10/28/16, Ex. A

- 1, at 1 (emphasis added); see id. , Ex. A

- 2 at 6 ( stating, in reference to the June 4, 2016 screening event, “ This Free Sports Physicals Event is Sponsored by the [School District] Offi ce of Athletics & [AHO] ” ) (emphasis added)

. Ms. White also contends that there is no evidence that she deliberately
violated Ms. Logan’s directive and any such violation was unintentional

. Ms.
White points out that on April 5, 201 6 , she reached out to Mr. Rosen because she

was un sure if her continued AHO involvement would violate Ms. Logan’s
directive. However , School District determined “ that [Ms. White’s] contact with [Mr.] Rosen concerning her involvement with the AHO was evidence that [she]
had som e realization that the involvement was wrong .” Comm’n’s Finding of Fact
No. 25. Moreover , “ [t] he record is [de] void of any attempt by [Ms. White ] to reach out directly to Ms. Logan for clarification on whether her AHO invo lvement would violate Ms. Logan’ s directive. ” Id. No. 24.
The Commission found that Ms. Logan directed Ms. White to cease all
contact and invo lvement with School District’s athletics d epartment during he r workday as of March 30, 2016. Id. No. 18. Despite this directive, the evidence
shows that Ms. White continued to plan and or chestrate AHO screening events for School District athletes in direct partnership with the Office of Athletics

. S he continued to have interactions during the workday with the athletics department

a nd other School District employees on athletics department matters

. In light of
this e vidence, as well as Ms. Logan’s uncontroverted testimony that Ms. White ’s
work for AHO was “congruent with her job duties” in the athletics department,14

N.T., 10/28/16, a t 26, it is clear that Ms. White understood t hat her continued
involvement with AHO during the workday violated School District’s directive. Therefore, we conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Ms. White intentionally violated a School
District directive by performing work for AHO during her School District work hours after March 30, 2016

. Conclusion Viewing the evidence of record in the light most favorable to School District, see Agostino , 968 A.2d at 269 , we agree with the Trial Court that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we
affirm the Trial Court’s Order.

________________________________ ELLEN CEISLER , J udgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Angela White, :

Appellant :

: v. : No. 308 C.D. 2018
: School District of Philadelphia :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25 th day of June, 20 19, the O rder of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered on February 5 , 2018, is hereby AFFIRMED.

__________________________________ ELLEN CEISLER , J udge