Court Opinion

ID: 9752631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:25:10.609006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:20.183110
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen,
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County reversing the order of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and requiring the Board of School Directors of Brentwood Borough, appellant, to retain and reinstate Helen M. Spano, appellee, as a professional employee.
On July 11, 1966 the Superintendent of the Brent-wood School District interviewed appellee for the position of Curriculum Coordinator which was then vacant. She was offered the job, and a contract was signed which became effective August 1, 1966. Soon thereafter difficulties arose, and relations between Miss Spano and others in the school system became strained. On November 7, 1966 she was asked to resign, and on April 20, 1967 she was suspended by the Superintendent. By a resolution of the School Board adopted September 12,1967 charges of incompetency and persistent and willful violation of the School Laws of Pennsylvania were brought against appellee as a basis for her dismissal. Hearings on the dismissal began on September 26,1967 and continued until April 16,1968 at which time she was discharged.
*259Miss Spano then took a timely appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction pursuant to the Act of March 10, 1949 (Public School Code of 1949), P.L. 30, art. XI, §1131, 24 P.S. §11-1131. By opinion and order dated October 11, 1968, the Superintendent found that appellee was a professional employee within the meaning of the Public School Code, dismissed the incompetency charges and sustained the action of the School Board in dismissing appellee for persistently and willfully violating the School Laws of Pennsylvania. Both sides then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County pursuant to §1132 of the Public School Code, supra, 24 P.S. §11-1132. The lower court dismissed appellant’s argument that the Superintendent had erred in finding appellee to be a professional employee and in dismissing the incompetency charges. At the same time it agreed with appellee that she had not been given a fair hearing by the School Board, and it ordered the School Board to retain her as a professional employee.
The first question we must answer is whether Miss Spano is a professional employee within the meaning of the Public School Code because if she is not she had no standing under §1131 and 1132 of that Code to appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Court of Common Pleas. Appellant argues that appellee is not a professional employee because the position of Curriculum Co-ordinator is a nonmandated position which is not encompassed by the definition of professional employee in §1101(1), 24 P.S. §11-1101(1), and that appellee abandoned whatever contractual relationship she had with appellant by not presenting her teaching certificate to the Superintendent before beginning work.
Section 1101(1) of the Code defines the term professional employee, and if an individual desires that designation, he must show that he fits within one of the *260categories created by the legislature. Elias v. Board of School Directors, 421 Pa. 260, 218 A. 2d 738 (1966). The section states “[t]he term ‘professional employee’ shall include those who are certificated as teachers, supervisors, supervising principals, principals . . .” and appellant argues that as the words Curriculum Co-ordinator do not specifically appear Miss Spano can not be a professional employee. Appellant recognizes, however, that appellee has been certified as a teacher, and §1141 states “ ‘Teacher’ shall include all professional employees . . . who devote fifty per centum (50%) of their time, or more, to teaching or other direct educational activities . . .” Construing sections 1101 and 1141 together, an individual is a teacher for purposes of §1141 if he holds the necessary certificate and devotes at least half his time to teaching or direct educational activities, and he is a professional employee under §1101 if he is a teacher under §1141. There is no question that Miss Spano held a teaching certificate, and the court below found that her areas of responsibility included curriculum development, evening classes for adults and the teachers’ in-service program which consisted, among other things, of teacher seminars for the improvement of teaching methods. It concluded that she devoted practically all her time to educational activities and there is ample support in the record for that conclusion. Certainly what she was doing qualified as “direct educational activities”, and thus she is a teacher under sections 1141 and 1101 and a professional employee entitled to appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Court of Common Pleas.
In addition, the contract between Miss Spano and the School District is entitled Professional Employee’s Contract and states that she is being employed to “serve as a professional employe in the said School District. . . .” Appellant’s Minute Book shows that “[o]n the *261recommendation of the District Superintendent, Mr. Powell moved, seconded by Mr. Frame, that Miss Helen Spano be hired as a Professional Employee with present duties being Curriculum Coordinator with a permanent contract at a salary of $9,000.00 per year consisting of twelve months.” The School BoarcL did not hire her as a teacher or supervisor or principal or any of the other categories enumerated in §1101; it hired her as a professional employee. In Smith v. Darby School District, 388 Pa. 301, 309-10, 130 A. 2d 661 (1957), we stated, “[a]n examination of these decisions indicates that the criterion for determining whether a position or office is or is not ‘mandated’ depends upon whether or not the title of the incumbent to the position or office is specifically covered by the phrase ‘professional employees’ in the statute.” In the contract between appellant and appellee, the title given her position was the phrase professional employee itself. Both the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the court below were correct in concluding that they had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Section 1212 of the Public School Code, 24 P.S. §12-1212, states, “Before entering upon the work of teaching, every holder of a permanent, special or State certificate, of any kind, shall present it, for registration, to the proper superintendent, who shall record its kind, number and date of issue, together with the branches which it covers.” Appellant argues that because the certificate was not presented prior to employment but seven months later appellee abandoned whatever contractual relationship she may have had with the School District.1 The record discloses, however, that any delay was due to a backlog in the Department of *262Public Instruction which prevented it from handling promptly appellee’s request for a duplicate certificate.
Having determined that the Superintendent and the court below had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we can turn to the merits. The lower court said:
“Since neither party requested a hearing de novo, we must review the record before the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to determine whether he manifestly abused his discretion or committed an error of law in determining that Miss Spano was accorded a fair hearing.”
' The lower court based its order that the Board retain appellee as a professional employee on its finding that Miss Spano had not been given a fair hearing and that the Superintendent abused his discretion when he found otherwise. In this appeal both parties feel that the central issue is whether or not Miss Spano was given a fair hearing by the School Board. It is true that when an appeal is not accompanied by a de novo hearing the court of common pleas should examine the record to see if there was a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law on the part of the Superintendent. Pease v. Millcreek Township School District, 412 Pa. 378, 195 A. 2d 104 (1963); Thall Appeal, 410 Pa. 222, 189 A. 2d 249 (1963); Tassone v. Redstone Township School District, 408 Pa. 290, 183 A. 2d 536 (1962); Appeal of Edwards, 57 Luzerne 105 (1967). This principle, however, is inapplicable if the appellant’s contention is that he did not receive a fair hearing before the School Board.
Sections 1126-29 of the Public School Code of 1949, the Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, art. XI, 24 P.S. §§11-1126, 11-1129, state that before a tenured professional employee is dismissed he is entitled to notice of the charges against him and a public hearing before the board of school directors. At that hearing the board plays a dual role. It acts both as prosecutor and as judge, and because of this it can never be totally un*263biased. See Spruce Hill Township School District Board of Directors v. Bryner, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 549, 25 A. 2d 745 (1942). Cf. Gardner v. Repasky, 434 Pa. 126, 252 A. 2d 704 (1969). By providing in §1132(b) for a de novo hearing by request in the court of common pleas as part of the appeal from the decision of the Superintendent, the legislature has given the employee the opportunity for a hearing in a forum free of any bias. Thus, if the employee-appellant desires, he can have his case retried in a forum in which the School Board plays only the role of prosecutor and not that of judge also. If the employee’s claim, however, is that he was denied a fair hearing before the School Board and he does not request a hearing de novo before the court, that failure forecloses him from raising the issue thereafter. That is so because bias may to some degree exist in every hearing before a school board, while the jury and prosecutor are one and an employee can not be heard to complain of that alleged bias when he has ignored or rejected the procedure provided by the legislature to eliminate that taint. The opportunity for a de novo hearing before the court must be taken as the exclusive remedy when an employee contends that the board’s bias and prejudice has deprived him of a fair hearing.
As we are announcing this principle for the first time today, in the interests of justice we will apply it prospectively only. Therefore, we shall remand the record and permit appellee to request a de novo hearing in the court below. If she chooses not to do so, that court is to review the determinations of the Superintendent (other than that as to the fairness of the hearing) in light of the standard of review enunciated in Pease, Thall and Tassone.
Order vacated, and record remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 As this requirement only applies to individuals who will be teaching, appellant’s insistence that appellee meet it weakens its argument that she was not a professional employee under §1101.