In the Interest of Kevin T. Callahan; Appeal of Kevin T. Callahan; 720 A.2d 815 (Pa.1998)

Facts of the case

Kevin T. Callahan was an industrial arts teacher in the Mid Valley School District. A study done by the Superintendent of Schools indicated that projected student enrollment in the program for the 1996-1997 school year would significantly decline. The school board notified the Pennsylvania Department of Education of its intention to curtail the program due to declining enrollment and also notified Callahan, who was the least senior in the program, that he was suspended.

Callahan requested a hearing by the board. The solicitor for the board and the hearing officer appointed by the board worked in the same law office. At this hearing, Callahan claimed that his due process rights were violated because of the relationship between the two attorneys. The board issued a decision affirming Callahan's suspension.

Callahan filed a petition for a trial court review because he continued to feel that his due process rights were violated. The trial court denied Callahan's appeal. Callahan appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the decision of the trial court. The Court indicated that the fact that the hearing officer and the school board's solicitor working in the same law office did not violate Callahan's due process rights as he was afforded a hearing before the board. The Court also noted that the hearing regarding Callahan's suspension was not a disciplinary hearing.

Basis of the Court's decision

The Court based its decision on Section 1125.1 of the Pennsylvania School Code which addresses the suspension of professional employees. It provides that a decision to suspend should be considered an adjudication within the meaning of the Local Agency Law. Due process rights are interpreted differently in these cases. The court also based it decision on three prior cases that involved due process rights for suspended teachers: Krupinski v. Vocational Technical School, Eastern Northampton County, 544 Pa. 58, 674 A.2d 683 (1996) ; Coyle v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, 654 A.2d 15 (Pa. Cmwlth.1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 541 Pa. 644, 663 A.2d 695 (1995) and Harris v. School District of Philadelphia, 155 Pa. Commw. 169, 624 A.2d 784 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 583 Pa. 616, 645, A.2d 1319 (1994).

In Krupinski, the Supreme Court found that suspension of a teacher due to curtailment of a program was not disciplinary in nature therefore the board was not acting as a prosecutor. The purpose of the hearing was to ensure the reason for the suspension existed and determine whether all the required procedures were followed. The Supreme Court found no due process violations.

In Coyle, an instructor's suspension due to curtailment of a program was questioned as to whether her due process rights were violated when the Executive Council (Board) voted to furlough her and then reviewed her furlough. The Commonwealth Court determined the suspension was not disciplinary and had the required approval of the Department of Education. Since the Council was not acting as a prosecutor, there was no violation of due process.

In the final case, Harris v. School District of Philadelphia, , the Court found that the transfer of a principal to a a new school in accordance with transfer protocol policy showed neither evidence of her due process rights being violated nor an improper relationship between the prosecutor before the board and the legal advisor to the school board. This decision supported prior judgments of the school board and the Secretary of Education.

Abstract prepared by Elaine Sautner and Jeannie Stroup, July 13, 1999.