Marshall Hamilton, Jr., Marshall Hamilton and Robin Hamilton, Appellants, v. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District,

693 A. 2d 655 ( Cmwlth.,1997).

Facts of the Case

Marshall Hamilton, Jr. was an eighth-grade, thirteen year-old student at the Charles S. Patton Middle School who was expelled from school for two violations of the district's and Patton Discipline codes. The first incident was the theft of a Sony Discman from another student's locker. Hamilton was suspended for ten days and placed on probation. Soon after returning from suspension, Hamilton was found with marijuana cigarettes in his possessions along with regular cigarettes. The recommendation to the Discipline Committee of the Board by the district superintendent was that Hamilton be expelled because of repeated "level F" suspensions. These were the most serious violations of the Patton Discipline Code. The board permanently expelled Hamilton because of his two infractions and the common pleas court affirmed their decision.

The Hamiltons appealed the decision of the common pleas court based on two arguments. First, the board had committed an error when it expelled Hamilton because a ten-day suspension rather than an expulsion was the punishment established by the Patton Code for level F infractions. Second, conflicts between the Patton Code and the district-wide disciplinary policy, which was used partially by the Board to expel Hamilton ,"...render then 'void for vagueness' under the Due Process Clause to the United States Constitution." (657)

Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the common pleas court and remanded to said court to instruct the Board, "...to impose a penalty consistent within the limits set forth in the Patton Code." (657)

The Commonwealth Court found that both the Patton Code and the school district policy were adopted within the discretion of the board. Under Section 1318 of the Pennsylvania School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P,L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. sec. 113-1318, a school board has broad discretion, "... to expel a student under circumstances deemed sufficient by the board, following a proper hearing. See Giles v. Brookville Area School District, 669 A. 2d. 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), petition for allowance denied, 544 Pa. 686, 679 A. 2d. 231 (1996).

The Court also cited Section 510 of the School Code, 24 P.S. sec. 5-510, provides that a school board ,"...may adopt and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations as it may deem necessary and proper regarding the conduct of all pupils..." (656)

To impose the punishment of expulsion, the board was compelled to apply both the Patton Code and the district policy. The Patton Code on its own did not clearly allow for expulsion for Hamilton's infractions, as it did not address repeated and / or severe level F infractions. The difficulty was the two policies read together were in conflict. Under district policy Hamilton's infractions could have resulted in expulsion, yet the Patton Code would limit the punishment to a ten-day suspension.

Basis for Decision

The Commonwealth Court found the board's interpretation of the two applicable policies to be an error in law, noting that, "Where,...a code of regulations limit the penalty that may be imposed, a school board may not embark on a convoluted journey through two sets of policies to find the result it would prefer to have." (657)

The court cited 1 Pa. C.S. sec. 1933 and made reference to the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. sects. 1501-1991. In examining 1 Pa. C.S., the court stated:

Whenever a general provision in a statute shall be in conflict with a special provision in the same or another statute, the two shall be construed , if possible, so that the effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable, the special shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. (657)

Abstract prepared by Mary Doyle and Cathy Moser, July, 1998