Demotion
Demotion is described in 24 PS § 11-1151. In case law, "pure demotions" are distinguished from "realignment demotions." (qv) Pure demotions are those referred to in § 11-1151. Such demotions are for reasons such as economy, efficiency or discipline and only the professional employee who is demoted is affected; the duties and responsibilities of other professionals are not affected as is the case in realignment demotions. The demotion can be in either salary or type of position. In Filoon v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational-Technical School, 160 Pa. Commw. 124, 634 A.2d 726, 729 (1993), Commonwealth Court stated:
A demotion under the School Code does not involve a separation from service, but rather is "a reassignment to a position which has less authority, prestige or salary." Walsh v. Sto-Rox School District, 110 Pa. Commw. 421, 424, 532 A.2d 547, 548 (1987). A reduction to part-time status also is a demotion. Reed [v. Juniata-Mifflin Counties Area Vocational-Technical School, 112 Pa. Commw. 529, 535 A.2d 1229], 532, 535 A.2d [1229], 1231 [1988]. Demotions are presumptively valid and an employee seeking to overturn a demotion has the burden of proving the action was arbitrary, discriminatory or founded on improper considerations. Id. at 536, 535 A.2d at 1233.
A professional employe who does not consent to demotion has the right to a hearing before the board of school directors and an appeal to the Secretary of Education.
In McCoy v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12, 391 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Comwlth., 1978), Commonwealth Court in upholding the demotion of a director of special education to school psychologist stated:
The maintenance of an efficient and competent school system has clearly been accepted as a valid reason for the demotion of an employee, and we will accept it here. We would note further that dismissal for "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the force" has been upheld as not unconstitutionally vague and as not a deprivation of due process by our United States Supreme Court in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 153 (1974). A legislative enactment will be deemed invalid only if it is so vague and indefinite that courts are unable to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty the intent of the legislative body or so incomplete, conflicting and inconsistent in its provisions that it cannot be executed. Furthermore, we believe that the appellant here was well aware of the basis for his demotion. He was informed numerous times by his supervisor that his insubordinate, disruptive and disloyal conduct was in question, and clearly a professional employee whose failure to abide by legitimate instructions or to accept the authority of his or her supervisor may subject him to dismissal, is certainly subject to the lesser penalty of demotion. See Spano v. School District, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 170, 316 A.2d 162 (1974). We cannot conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence was not capable of determining what conduct was proscribed and could therefore subject him to demotion proceedings, so we cannot accept the argument that there is an unconstitutionally vague standard being applied in this case.
391 A.2d at 1124-1125
School Code 24 PS § 11-1151