Katruska v. Department of Education. 272 A.2d 612 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999)

Facts of the Case

Thomas Katruska, high school principal at Bethlehem Center School District was demoted from the position of principal to classroom teacher on July 31, 1996. Prior to the demotion several teachers and administrators expressed their concerns with Mr. Katruska's performance as principal. Katruska had served as principal from 1992 - 1996. He had received satisfactory ratings for the years 1992-1995. Although he had received satisfactory ratings, Katruska was informed of many areas of his performance that needed to be improved. He failed to make these improvements and received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1995-1996 school year. Following the unsatisfactory rating, the superintendent recommended that Katruska be demoted from principal to classroom teacher. The school board accepted this recommendation for demotion with a 7 to zero vote in favor of the demotion. Katruska received a hearing before the board at his request. At this hearing several individuals testified. The testimony of Mrs. Bartolomucci, who was the secretary/clerical support and attendance officer for the senior high school, became the issue in this case. Her husband was a member of the board and voted on the demotion of Katruska. At the close of testimony at the hearing, the demotion was upheld with a 6 to 2 vote. Mr. Bartolomucci voted in favor of the demotion.

Katruska appealed the decision of the school board to the Secretary of Education. Katruska claimed his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in that he did not receive his due process rights Katruska contended that his due process rights were violated when Mr. Bartolomucci voted on his demotion. Bartolomucci should have been disqualified on the basis of statutory and constitutional grounds. The vote for demotion needed to be "impartial and unbiased" and passed with a two-thirds vote of the school board according to Section 1129 of the Public School Code. The Secretary of Education affirmed the decision of the school board without hearing any additional evidence. Katruska appealed to Commonwealth Court.

Decision of the Court

On May 11, 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania vacated the opinion of the Secretary of Education and remanded the matter to the school board to hold another hearing without the participation of Mr. Bartolomucci.

Basis for the Decision

The basis of the decision focused on the due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. According the Fourteenth Amendment, due process rights must be unbiased and avoid even the appearance of bias. A denial of due process may be based on the potential of bias and the appearance of nonobjectivity.

While there are no administrative agency cases to serve as precedent case law, cases exist which disqualify judges based on marital relationships. Three cases were cited: West Virginia ex rel. Eustace Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W. Va. 169, S.E.2d 47 (1994), Holloway v. Hopper, 852 P.2d 711 (Okla 1993), Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214 (Colo.Ct.App 1984).

Abstract prepared by Kindra Brelsford and Paula Reber, Summer 2000.