Quantcast

School administrators litigating with Scranton School District over lack of input on compensation plan

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

School administrators litigating with Scranton School District over lack of input on compensation plan

State Court
Lackawannacountycourthouse

Lackawanna County Courthouse

SCRANTON – Six school administrators in Lackawanna County are bringing legal action against the Scranton School District and its Board of School Directors, claiming that the defendants voted upon a new administrator compensation plan without meeting with them to seek their input.

Michael Montoro, John Coyle, Albert O’Donnell, Robert DeLuca, Dan Gilroy and Anne Genett collectively filed a complaint sounding in mandamus in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on April 27 versus the Scranton School District and the Board of School Directors of the Scranton School District.

Plaintiff Montoro, Vice-Principal of Scranton High School, also served as the President of the District’s Act 93 negotiation committee for the supervisory unit for all School Administrators of the District, for the purpose of meeting with the defendant Board of School Directors of the Scranton School District (which has nine members), to discuss the terms of a new Administrator Compensation Plan.

The remaining plaintiffs are also administrators at various schools in the Scranton School District, who also serve on the District’s Act 93 negotiation committee for the same purpose.

“As school administrators, plaintiffs were and are entitled to the rights, benefits and privileges set forth in Act 93. Section 1164(c) of Act 93, contained within the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949, reads as follows: ‘School employers, upon the written request of a majority of the school administrators in the district, shall be required to meet and discuss in good faith with the school administrators on administrator compensation prior to the adoption of the compensation plan,” the suit states.

“This provision of Act 93 is mandatory, clear and unambiguous. Nowhere within the clear statutory framework of Act 93 or otherwise is the board of school directors allowed or authorized to delegate this statutory duty to other representatives of the District.”

The plaintiffs were among a group of school administrators who requested a meeting to discuss a proposed administrator compensation plan with the defendants in a March 4 letter – a request which the defendants denied in a response email dated March 12.

In a subsequent email, the plaintiffs and other school administrators notified the defendants that their position was in violation of its statutory obligations under Act 93, and further inquired as to whether the District remained firm in its position.

The defendants did not respond to that second email message, the suit says.

“Instead, weeks later and unbeknownst to plaintiffs and the rest of the Scranton School District school administrators, the District issued a statement dated April 23, 2021, wherein the District reported that a ‘motion to approve the Act 93 Agreement is on the agenda for the May 3rd meeting of the Board of Education’,” per the suit.

“This prompted plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel to, once again, alert the District to the fact that its anticipated actions on May 3rd prior to the meeting with the school administrators as requested was a clear violation of Act 93, and that immediate injunctive relief and a corresponding mandamus action would result.”

However, the defendants doubled down on their position, leading the plaintiffs to file the instant mandamus action.

The plaintiffs are seeking the following relief:

• An order from the Court declaring that defendants’ actions are in violation of the statutory obligations imposed by the applicable provisions of Act 93 as outlined more fully above;

• An order from the Court preliminarily enjoining defendants from taking any action to review and/or approve any new administrator compensation plan as scheduled at the next meeting of the School Board on May 3, 2021, or at any time prior or subsequent to that meeting, pending further order of Court;

• An order entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs and compelling defendant School Board to meet with the School Administrators, including plaintiffs, prior to the adoption of any new administrator compensation plan in compliance with the strict statutory mandates and obligations imposed on the defendant School Board under Act 93; and

• Such other and further relief the Court finds just and equitable under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs are represented by Frank Tunis of Tunis Law, in Dickson City.

The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2021-CV-01847

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

More News