Francis Kinniry, Petitioner, v. Abington School District, Respondent,
Cmwlth, 673 A. 2d 429 (1996).
Facts of the Case

Francis Kinniry was a tenured professional employee of the Abington School District. In 1993 Kinniry pled guilty to the trafficking of counterfeit designer watches. On September 28, 1993 the Abington School District brought charges against Kinniry as an ineffective elementary school teacher, because his conduct offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for students. On November 23, 1993, the board terminated Kinniry's employment as a professional employee in the district on the basis of immorality. On December 9, 1993, Kinniry appealed the board's decision to the Secretary of Education. Kinniry contended that the district did not present evidence that his conduct offended the morals of the community or was a bad example to the children in the district. Kinniry argued that the sixteen-month, twenty-day delay of the Secretary's decision of the appeal violated his constitutional right to due process. Kinniry also alleged that there was impermissible commingling of prosecutory and adjudicator functions in his case because his decertification was being considered by the Department of Education the same time as his appeal concerning dismissal was being considered by the Department..

Decisions of the Secretary of Education and Commonweath Court

On May 31, 1995, the Secretary of Education affirmed the board's decision to terminate Kinniry's contract. Kinnery appealed to the Commonwealth Court which held: (1) the federal offenses to which Kinniry pled guilty were offensive and, as federal crimes, offended the morals of every community in the nation and set a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate; (2) since no evidence was provided that Kinniry suffered any prejudice or harm as a result of the delay, his due process rights were not violated; and (3) in the absence of proving any commingling actually took place, Kinniry's due process rights were again not violated.

Basis for the Decision

The Commonwealth Court based its decision on Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. 11-1122. The Court stated:

Written by Cynthia Miller & Drucilla Aumiller, July 1997