PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has confirmed an arbitration award in favor of a teachers’ union and an educator it represents who was reinstated after a sexual misconduct allegation, while denying a cross-motion for summary judgment from two area schools opposing that action.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan issued a memorandum opinion on Aug. 17, confirming the award in the favor of the Federation of Pittsburgh Diocesan Teachers, and rejecting the summary judgment motion from Catholic High Schools of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Inc. and Seton LaSalle High School, Inc.
“The underlying dispute involves a teacher who in 2018 was accused by a former student of engaging in sexual misconduct. The school eventually placed the teacher on investigatory suspension as it and law enforcement investigated the accusations; but given the lack of evidence, the teacher was reinstated. In 2019 and 2020, former students filed civil lawsuits, accusing the teacher of sexual misconduct; but the teacher was allowed to teach during this time. Then, on Feb. 12, 2021, the principal became aware of a Facebook post from Gemma Hoskins, which demanded that the teacher be suspended until the cases were closed. Four days later, the school placed the teacher on an investigatory suspension, with pay. He was still on investigatory suspension as of Oct. 22, 2021, when he filed an arbitration demand complaining about the delay,” Ranjan said.
“On Nov. 30, 2021 the arbitrator issued a 16-page opinion and award, and found that the school violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement when it kept the teacher on essentially an indefinite suspension without providing evidence of wrongdoing, and so he ordered the teacher to be reinstated to the classroom. The school contends that the arbitrator overstepped his authority and that his decision did not draw its essence from the parties’ agreement. The union argues that the award is grounded in the terms of the agreement, so it must be confirmed.”
Ranjan explained that courts “will not overturn an arbitration award unless we conclude there is a manifest disregard of the agreement, totally unsupported by the principles of contract construction and the law of the shop.”
The judge added that the collective bargaining agreement between the union and employer contains two relevant disciplinary provisions:
• 3.3: The right to hire, suspend, discharge or otherwise discipline a teacher for violation of rules or just cause shall be exercised at the local level according to the policies established by the High School and Department. None of these policies may contradict or contravene any provision of this Agreement.
• 3.4: In certain situations, the welfare of the students or the integrity of the High School may require the suspension of a teacher or employee. In such cases it will be the prerogative of the High School, after consultation with the Superintendent and Federation, to decide whether suspension with or without pay is necessary or appropriate. The decision of the High School will be final pending the completion of any grievance procedure pursued on the merits.
The school argued that the suspension of the accused teacher falls under Article 3.4 of the agreement because it was an “investigatory suspension,” rather than a “disciplinary suspension,” which falls under Article 3.3.
According to the school, this is a critical difference because under the terms of the CBA, an Article 3.3 disciplinary suspension requires a showing of “just cause,” but an Article 3.4 investigatory suspension has no similar limiting language.
In this case, Ranjan found “that there is some rational basis in the contract for the arbitrator’s decision.”
“The arbitrator’s interpretation is grounded in language of the contract in a rational way. The interpretation reads two adjacent contractual provisions in Article 3 in harmony. Moreover, the arbitrator’s interpretation doesn’t contradict any other express terms, and, despite what the school says, it doesn’t add any additional terms. These are usually the scenarios where arbitrators’ awards are overturned, and they are not present here. For example, the CBA doesn’t define ‘discipline’ in a specific way; it doesn’t expressly state that the length of an investigatory suspension is in the sole and exclusive discretion of the school; and it doesn’t say that the school shall have the final, unchallengeable ability to classify a suspension as either investigative or disciplinary. Therefore, unlike cases where an arbitrator’s award is vacated for straying too far from the contract by contradicting express terms, the award here didn’t hit such land mines,” Ranjan said.
“While the school here quibbles over whether the investigation was really so long as to become a form of disciplinary action, which is a factual finding that the Court cannot second guess. Because the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the terms of the CBA, the Court is constrained to confirm the award. For the foregoing reasons, the arbitration award is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. By separate order, final judgment will be entered in favor of defendant. Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied without prejudice to raising in a post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 54.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Ruxton and James P. Thomas of Clark Hill, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Benjamin Ernest Orsatti of Gabriel Fera, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01808
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com