Facts of the Case

A. Bradley Flickinger was principal of a middle school for Lebanon School District. As principal, Flickinger received training in regard to responding to incidents involving reports of weapons in the school. This training provided by the National Crisis Prevention Institute stated that weapons reports are the “utmost priority” for school administrators and that the response to such reports should always involve a team of two or more administrators. Additionally, at the middle school there was an “Emergency Chain of Command” to be used when responding to weapons reports. Flickinger told the middle school staff that in the case of reports dealing with weapons, he, as principal, would always be the first responder.

On September 17, 2004, Flickinger was in his office with a female student, R.K., who had been involved in a fight. The other female student, V.B., involved in the incident was in the nurse’s office. As Flickinger was dealing with R.K. in his office, the sister of V.B. signed into the school. Flickinger went to speak with V.B. and her sister and upon returning to his own office, saw the mother of R.K. in the lobby. Flickinger stated that he feared there would be a confrontation between the two families if they saw each other, so he took R.K.’s mother into his office. While Flickinger had R.K. and her mother in his office, V.B.’s mother and another sister came to get V.B. V.B. and all of her family members signed out of the school at 12:30 p.m. Flickinger stayed in his office with R.K. and her mother from 12:25 pm to 1:06 pm. It is also noted that none of V.B.’s family members were ever in the lobby at the same time as R.K. or her mother.

Meanwhile, assistant principal of the middle school, Barbara Rothermal, was in her office dealing with another student who had been in an unrelated fight. The student informed Rothermal that other students said they saw another pupil with a gun. At approximately 12:40 pm, Rothermal went to Flickinger’s office to tell him she needed help dealing with a student who possibly had a gun. Flickinger made a hand gesture to Rothermal indicating that he would be with her in a few minutes. Rothermal continued to ask Flickinger at least three more times for help in dealing with the weapons report and each time, Flickinger gave her the same hand gesture. At no time did he indicate that he would not be able to help her, but he indicated he needed a few more minutes until he would be ready to do so. During this time, the other assistant principal came into the office at which time Rothermal informed her of the weapon’s report. Both assistant principals immediately left the office to get the student. When called out of class, the student was found to have a knife and a gun in his pocket. After the weapons were found, Flickinger arrived on the scene and, along with assistant principals, took the student to the office. Upon arriving back at the office, the assistant principals dealt with the student and the police, and Flickinger went back into his own office.

Later the same day, the superintendent came to meet with Flickinger and questioned his response to the weapon incident. Flickinger asserted that he was dealing with a fight between two students and that both incidents were equally important and crucial.

Three days later, Flickinger received a letter from the superintendent stating that he was dismissed from his duties as middle school principal because he displayed “a willful neglect of duty by his failure to respond to a crisis situation” (5). Flickinger additionally received another letter from the superintendent stating that the school board took action to dismiss him during a meeting for willful neglect of duty. Flickinger filed an appeal to the Secretary of Education against the district in compliance with Section 1131 of the Code, 24 P.S. 11-1131.

A month later, Flickinger received a letter from the superintendent stating that the school board took back its earlier action of ending his employment and reinstated him but he was immediately put on administrative leave pending an investigation. His earlier appeal to the Secretary was dismissed because he was reappointed to his position.

On March 16th, 2005, the District informed Flickinger of the charges against him and delivered Notice of Hearing. The charges against him alleged that Flickinger’s conduct in dealing with the gun incident “constituted persistent negligence in the performance of duties, incompetence, persistent and willful violation or failure to comply with the school laws of the Commonwealth” (6). These allegations are violations of Section 1122(a) of the Code, P.S. 11-1122(a). Hearings were conducted and the district dismissed Flickinger for willful neglect of duties, as he knew the proper protocol through his training as administrator how to deal with weapons reports. Flickinger filed a tenure appeal to the Secretary of Education who affirmed the school board’s decision. Flickinger then appealed the Secretary’s affirmation to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The issue raised by Flickinger in this case is that his due process rights were violated during his initial dismissal from his position because he was not informed of the charges against him and he was not granted a pre-termination hearing. Additionally at issue, Flickinger contends that there was not any substantial evidence showing that he portrayed a willful neglect of duty. He stated that at the time of the report he was dealing with a fight that had the potential to escalate involving the families of the girls involved. In addition, Flickinger contended that he thought that the assistant principals were handling the gun incident and, since he thought the matter was being handled, this did not show that he neglected his duties as a principal.

Decision

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania supported the decision of the Secretary of Education confirming that Flickinger was given due process by the school board in regard to his dismissal. The court also affirmed that, in regard to his response to the weapons report, he did exhibit a willful neglect of his duties as an administrator.

Basis of the Decision

In regard to Flickinger’s claim that his due process rights were violated, the Commonwealth Court noted that while an initial mistake was made when he was terminated the first time, it was rectified by the school district when he was reinstated and put on administrative leave. Following his placement on leave, Flickinger was notified of the charges against him and was granted pre-termination hearings and was given an appeal review by the Secretary of Education. This is all in compliance with his due process rights. When an agency mistakenly does not give due process rights to an individual, it does not mean the charges are dropped but rather the agency can adequately remedy the situation by taking back the dismissal, and following the appropriate due process procedure, as the school board did. See Pavonarisus v. City of Allentown, 629 A.2d 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) and Forest Area School District v. Shoup, 621 A.2D 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

In regard to the charge of willful neglect of duty, the Commonwealth Court stated that there was substantial evidence to uphold this allegation. The court explained that in the charge of willful neglect of duties by a professional employee is “an intentional disregard of duties by that employee” and a willful violation is with “the presence of intention and at least some power of choice”. See Williams v. Joint Operating Committee of Clearfield County Vocational Technical School, 824 A.2d. 1233, 1236 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) and Cowdery v. Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia, 531 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Pa.Cmwlth 1987). One example of willful neglect portrayed by Flickinger occurred when he made the choice not to immediately respond to the weapons incident but to rather deal with a fight that had already ended under the pretense that it had the “possibility” to escalate further. However, based on the times recorded, at the time the weapons report was made, there was no possibility of the fight escalating, as V.B. and her family left at 12:30 pm and the gun was reported to Flickinger at 12:40 pm. This shows that Flickinger made a decision not to immediately respond and this decision goes against Flickinger’s training as an administrator, which states that weapons reports are the top priority and supercede all other types of incidents. In his decision to attend to the fight matter first, he is intentionally disregarding his administrative duties.

Additionally, Flickinger’s training made him aware of the fact that a team of two or more should respond to a weapons report. The court found that he intentionally made the decision to prolong Rothermal’s response to the incident by not indicating to her in anyway what his intentions were in dealing with the matter. This case not only shows his own neglect to the matter, but he also was prolonging the response of other individuals as he was well aware of the fact that a team of two was needed to respond.

Written by Marisa Hess
Summer 2006