Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Commonwealth Court turns back middle school principal's complaint to recover lost salary

State Court
Salary03

HARRISBURG – A three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the dismissal of a former middle school principal’s complaint which sought his salary for a five-month period in 2013, when he was suspended without pay.

Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter authored the Court’s June 10 opinion, for colleague judges P. Kevin Brobson and Anne E. Covey.

“In February 2013, Barnett served as Principal of the Linton Middle School. At that time, $300 was collected at the door during a fundraiser at the middle school and handed to Barnett’s wife, with instructions to give the money to Barnett. The $300 has remained unaccounted for since that time,” according to Leadbetter.

“Barnett was approached multiple times about the whereabouts of the $300 and gave conflicting answers. That matter escalated into a disciplinary action, which included the previously mentioned suspension without pay. After hearings were held before the School Board, Barnett was dismissed by the School District.”

Barnett appealed his dismissal to the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, who found that Barnett’s misrepresentations constituted immorality. The Commonwealth Court affirmed that decision. Barnett requested re-argument, which was denied and not appealed (Barnett I).

Prior to that decision being reached, Barnett filed suit against the Penn Hills School District and individual members of its Board in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Barnett II). When the defendants motioned to dismiss the case, the dismissal was granted for reasons of res judicata.

A breach of contract claim in that case was dismissed without prejudice, for refiling in an “appropriate state court”, which Barnett did in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in April 2016 – in the complaint, he cited the Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).

In April 2019, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Barnett’s action with prejudice. Barnett appealed to the Commonwealth Court on the grounds of the trial court erring, by using materials not entered in the record to make their decision and erroneously concluding that res judicata applied to the case.

“While the failure to attach these documents is irregular, Barnett did not object to their omission in his response and cannot claim that the documents do not exist or that their contents are unfamiliar to him. Barnett knew of their existence and has not disputed their contents, although he does dispute their import,” Leadbetter said.

“While the trial court could –and perhaps should – have limited its citations to the motion for summary judgment and the admissions in Barnett’s response (i.e., documents in its possession), and avoided citation to documents not actually submitted into the record, this seems to be, on the facts of this case, of no moment.”

As to the issue of collateral estoppel, Leadbetter said those issues could not be re-litigated because they were already handled in the Barnett I case.

Leadbetter explained it was “well-settled that under the Public School Code a school superintendent may suspend an employee without pay pending termination proceedings”, and added the Commonwealth Court would affirm the trial court verdict.

“Section 1130 of the Public School Code makes recovery of back pay contingent upon the employee’s succeeding in his challenge to the termination. While the Court appreciates the ingenuity of Barnett’s counsel in arguing that a terminated employee may separately challenge the loss of pay during a pre-termination suspension under the WPCL,” Leadbetter said.

“For purposes of collateral estoppel, in this case, the issues presented here were adjudicated in Barnett I because the justification found sufficient to terminate Barnett validated his suspension prior to termination. There was a final judgment on the merits because the forums for appealing his termination ruled on the merits and no further appeal was attempted.”

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 574 C.D. 2019

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News