Facts of the Case

Katharina Lauer, an elementary teacher since 1968, was dismissed in October, 1991, by the School Board of the Millville Area School District for reasons of incompetence, intemperance, persistent negligence, and willful and persistent violation of the school laws.  These reasons stemmed from a series of inappropriate comments made to students and parents on several occasions over a four-year period.  The teacher was confronted by the principal at the times of the inappropriate commentary and told that the comments were improper.  Lauer made further comments after these administrative confrontations and her admission that these comments were inappropriate.

After the dismissal, Lauer appealed to the Secretary of Education and he upheld the dismissal for the reason of persistent negligence, but reversed the other three reasons for dismissal.  The Secretary found Lauer's comments to be inappropriate and persistent.

The argument was heard by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on February 7, 1995.

Decision of the Court

Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the Secretary of Education dated June 9, 1994, stating "the teacher's conduct lacked a requisite continuity for dismissal for 'persistent negligence,'" (p. 119 and 120).  The charges were based on eight statements made by Lauer.  Four of these statements were ruled as hearsay and the burden of proof was placed on the School District.  The Court agreed that statements were better left unsaid but the statements did not support the serious charge of "persistent negligence" and her consequent discharge.

Basis for the Decision

The Court's decision was based on the meaning of "persistent negligence."  The School Code does not define the charge of "persistent negligence."

Cases cited to support the findings are Sinton's Case, 151 PA Superior Ct. 543, 548, 30 A.2d. 628, 630 (1943) which said "persistent means continuing or constant."  Stinrich v. Clairton School District, 494 Pa. 297, 305, 431 A.2d. 267, 271 (1981), cert. den. 456 U.S. 982, 102 S. Ct. 2254, 72 L.Ed.2d. 860 (1982) in which the Supreme Court approved the same descriptive terms assigned to persistent, "continuing or constant."  Phillis v. Board of School Directors, 151 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 497, 617 A.2d. 830, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 664, 634  A.2d. 226 (1993), stated that the burden of proof is properly placed on the school district with hearsay evidence.

The Court then determined that the number of times Lauer was in error verbally did not constitute enough to be deemed "persistent" and further study of the case revealed, in the opinion of the Court, a high level of picayune reprimands by the principal toward Lauer.

Prepared by: Jane Bowers, Brandon Pardoe, Mel Wentzel; July, 1997