No. 2781 C.D.2000 (Pa. Comwlth., 2002)

Facts of the Case

McGuffey School District and the Board of Directors appealed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. The district was accused of violating Section 1080 of the School Code. The district superintendent, Mr. Burger, was suspended pending a removal hearing on the grounds of sexual harassment. Mr. Burger took office as superintendent under a five year contract and accusations of sexual harassment began to surface. The district soon after began to investigate the accusations. On August 14, 2000 Mr. Burger was suspended with pay during the ongoing investigation. The district’s attorney, Bruce Campbell, then held an informal hearing with Mr. Burger. Following the hearing on October 26, 2000 Campbell told the district that the evidence warranted removing Dr. Burger in accordance with section 1080. On November 2, 2000 the district suspended Burger without pay and decided that a formal dismissal hearing would begin. On November 17, 2000 Burger filed a complaint in mandamus for reinstatement. The court reinstated Dr. Burger and restored his compensation and benefits. After a hearing, the court of common pleas granted mandamus, rescinded Burger’s suspension, and restored his compensation and benefits. The district appealed to the Commonwealth Court claiming that the court of common pleas erred in granting mandamus and that mandamus was inappropriate because Burger’s exclusive remedy was an appeal under local agency laws.

Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth Court found that mandamus was inappropriate because Local Agency Law provided an adequate remedy. The school district had the “inherent managerial prerogative to suspend the superintendent pending his removal because “serious charges of misconduct” had bee raised.

Basis for Decision

Commonwealth Court stated that a complete and adequate remedy existed under Section 10-1080 with an appeal to the court of common pleas under Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. Section 752. It rejected Burger’s contention that mandamus was appropriate under Burns v. Uniontown Area School District 748 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Commonwealth. 2000) because Burger’s suspension was for grounds stated in Section 1080. The court justified the disciplinary suspension on the basis of Rike v. Secretary of Education, 508 Pa. 190, 494 A.2d 1388, 1390-91 (1985).

Prepared by Ben Slater July 22, 2003