Court Opinion

ID: 9700745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:47:43.499864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.252261
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that the order of Commonwealth Court upholding the suspensions of the appellant teachers herein who had more seniority than others with the same certification must be reversed, I object to the attempt of the majority to read into section 11-1125.1 of the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, as amended 24 P.S. § 1125.1, any intention on the part of the Legislature to permit school administrators to continue to exercise discretion in the realignment of professional staff. See Duncan v. Rochester Area School Board, 524 Pa. 254, 571 A.2d 365 (1990) (Larsen, J., dissenting); Gibbons v. New Castle Area School District, 518 Pa. 443, 543 A.2d 1087 (1988) (Larsen, J., dissenting).
In addition, I strenuously object to the “relief” provided by the majority, and I would order the reinstatement with back pay of those teachers improperly suspended. There is simply no reason or precedent for penalizing these litigants *270any further, especially in view of the fact that the delay was caused by the “system.”
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.