Facts of the Case

Eleven professional employees of the Chester Upland School were furloughed because of a decrease in enrollment. In 1992 the school district established new positions of In-School Suspension Teacher, House Coordinator, Vocational Special Needs Coordinator, and Student Assistance Coordinator. The school district never asked any of the furloughed employees if they wanted to fill any of these new positions for which they were qualified. The furloughed employees filed an action against the school district alleging that they all had Level I or Level II teaching certification, which was the only requirement for the new positions.

The trial court said that the school district must hire the furloughed employees with the most seniority retroactive to the 1992-hire date. The school district appealed this decision to the Commonwealth Court. The school district contended that these new positions required specialized certification and even administrative certification. Under the school code the furloughed employees did not have to be called back to positions such as these, which were administrative positions because filling them would be a promotion. The furloughed employees argued that even if the Department of Education said that the positions required specialized certification, the new employees hired by the district did not have this specialized certification. They only had the same certifications as the suspended employees.

Decision of the Court

On June 26, 2000, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the district hire the furloughed employees for three of the positions - In-School Suspension Teacher, House Coordinator, and Vocational Special Needs Coordinator. However, the court reversed the order concerning the Student Assistance Coordinator position, because it did require either a Master's Degree or a teaching certificate with experience in various assistance programs, which none of the furloughed employees had.

Basis for the Decision

The Court based its decision on Section 1125.1(d)(2) of the School Code that states, "Suspended professional employes … shall be reinstated on the basis of their seniority within the school entity. No new appointments shall be made while there is such a suspended … professional employe available who is properly certificated to fill such vacancy." (736)

They cited the case of Bennett v. Central Montgomery Vo-Tech, 550 Pa. 212, 218, 704 A.2d 623, 626 (1997), "[S]eniority may give way to other educational interests." Also in Gibbons v. New Castle Area School District, 518 Pa. 443, 449, 543 A.2d 1087, 1089 (1988), the court cited, "Nothing about [Section 1125.1] indicates that it is intended to alter the longstanding statutory grant of discretion to school boards to appoint professional staff on the basis of the educational needs of the district, beyond requiring that the diminishment of professional employees' status be accomplished according to seniority."

Written by Michelle Shearer and Gretchen Robbins, July 2001