Immorality
Intemperance is one of the reasons (causes) stated in 24 PS § 11-1122 for which a professional or temporary professional employee can be dismissed from employment by the school board. It is also conduct for which the Professional Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) may impose discipline on a professional educator as stated in § 5(a)(11) of Act 141 of 1973 (P.L. 397). Under the power given by § 5(a)(11), the Commission adopted Chapter 237 of 22 PA Code to define terms, one of which is immorality.
Dismissal
Section 11-1122 of The Public School Code of 1949 does not define immorality, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judicially defined "immorality" in Horosko v. Mount Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866, cert. denied, 308 U.S. 553, 60 S.Ct. 101, 84 L.Ed. 465 (1939):
We hold it to be self evident that, under the intent and meaning of the act, immorality is not essentially confined to a deviation from sex morality, it may be such a course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate.
6. A.2d. at 868. The school board determines initially if the morals of the community have been offended and must support this determination with substantial evidence. The Secretary of Education is the ultimate fact finder. However, both parts of the definition must be satisfied to justify dismissal on the grounds of immorality. See Central York School District. V. Ehrhart, 36 Pa. Cmwlth. 278, 387 A.2d 1006 (1978). Also, a single occurrence of a behavior can justify dismissal on the grounds of immorality. See Lesley v. Oxford Area School District, 54 Pa Cmwlth. 120, 420 A.2d 764 (1980). The Commonwealth Court has made a distinction between unprofessional conduct and unprofessional conduct that "rises to the level of immorality." See Horton v. Jefferson County-Dubois Area Vocational Technical School, 157 Pa. Cmwlth. 424, 630 A.2d. 481 (1993). In Kinnery v. Abington School District, 673 A.2d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth., 1996), Commonwealth Court described the three-fold burden of proof placed on the school district:
The elements of the offense of immorality, which the school district bears the burden of proving, Foderaro v. School District of Philadelphia, 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 491, 531 A.2d 570 (1987), are three-fold. First, the school district must prove that the underlying acts which it claims constitute immorality actually occurred. Second, the school district must show that such conduct offends the morals of the community. Finally, the school district must demonstrate that the conduct at issue is a bad example to the youth whose ideals the educator is supposed to foster and elevate.
Discipline
The scope and effect of Chapter 237 of 22 Pa Code is stated in 22 Pa Code § 237.2. Cruelty is defined for the purposes of discipline imposed upon a professional educator by the Commission in 22 Pa Code § 237.3:
(a) Definition. Immorality is conduct which offends the morals of a community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a professional educator has a duty to foster and elevate.
(b) Morals of a community. For purposes of the definition of the term "immorality" set forth in sub-section (a), the "morals of a community" mean the morals of the community in which the professional educator is employed.
School Code 24 PS § 11-1122
Regulations of the State Board of Education 22 PA Code § 237.3