Katruska v. Bethlehem Center School District
767 A.2d 1051 (PA 2001)

Facts of the Case

Thomas Katruska was a high school principal in the Bethlehem Center School District. Dr. Thomas Knight, the superintendent, was responsible for the overall supervision of Katruska. Katruska began employment as principal in the 1992-93 school year and received satisfactory evaluations from Knight for the 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95 school years. Each evaluation, however, gave notification of areas of concern that required corrective action. On June 18, 1996 Knight issued an unsatisfactory rating to Katruska for the 1995-96 school year. Knight noted several areas in which Katruska had not performed satisfactorily. The superintendent recommended that Katruska be demoted from principal to classroom teacher.

On July 22, 1996 the board voted to demote Katruska. Katruska requested a hearing before the board concerning the demotion. During the hearing, Mrs. Bartolomucci, the wife of a school board member, testified concerning the negligence of Katruska. At the end of the proceedings the board approved the demotion by a 6-2 vote with Mr. Bartolomucci voting in favor of the demotion.

Katruska appealed the board's decision to the Secretary of Education. The appeal was based upon Katruska's assertion that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in that he did not receive due process when the board allowed Mr. Bartolomucci to vote on his demotion. According to Section 1129 of the Public School Code, a vote for demotion needs to be "impartial and unbiased" and passed by a two-thirds vote of the school board. The Secretary of Education upheld the decision of the school board in a de novo review of the matter. Katruska appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected the claim that Section 1129 had been violated, but concluded the Katruska had been denied due process because Mr. Bartolomucci's presence during deliberations and vote on demotion created an appearance of bias in the proceedings. The Commonwealth Court cited Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535, 605 A.2d 1204 (1992) as the precedent in this case. The Commonwealth court vacated the Secretary of Education's order and remanded the matter back to the board for another hearing without Mr. Bartolomucci's involvement. The Bethlehem Central School District then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that Section 1129 had not been violated, but reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. Thus reinstating the order of the Secretary of Education and the demotion of Katruska.

Basis for the Decision

The PA Supreme Court found that the Commonwealth Court erred in citing Lyness v. State Board of Medicine. They felt that Belasco v. Board of Education, 510 Pa. 504, 510 A.2d 337 (1986) was the precedent. In Belasco, the PA Supreme Court addressed the nature of the Secretary of Education's review of an appeal from the decision of a school board and "held in an appeal by an aggrieved professional employee under Section 1131 of the Public School Code, the Secretary of Education is vested with the authority to conduct a de novo review of the proceedings whether or not additional testimony is taken"(1055). The PA Supreme Court has observed "minimum requirements of due process demand that a litigant have, at some stage of a proceeding, a neutral fact finder" Id. With this observation and the citing of Belasco the PA Supreme Court found that the de novo review by the Secretary of Education did indeed provide Katruska with a neutral fact finder thus providing due process.

Prepared by Andrea Teats and Corey Wert, Summer 2001.