McCorkle v. Bellefonte Area Bd. of School Directors

• Decision Date: 10 April 1979
• Parties: Judith A. McCORKLE, Appellant, v. BELLEFONTE AREA BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS et al., Appellees.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

401 A.2d 371

41 Pa.Cmwlth. 581

Judith A. McCORKLE, Appellant, v. BELLEFONTE AREA BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS et al., Appellees.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

April 10, 1979

Argued Feb. 9, 1979.

William A. Hebe, Spencer, Gleason & Hebe Priscilla M. Walroth, Walroth & Coolidge, Wellsboro, for appellant.

John R. Miller, Jr., Bellefonte, for appellees.

Before ROGERS, BLATT and DiSALLE, JJ.

OPINION

DiSALLE Judge.

Judith A McCorkle (Appellant) asks that we reverse the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County sustaining the preliminary objections of the Bellefonte Area Board of School Directors (School Board) to her complaint in mandamus seeking reinstatement. This we decline to do.

On August 21, 1972, the Superintendent of the Bellefonte Area School District (School District) interviewed Appellant, a certified public school teacher, in an effort to fill a vacancy created by the eleventh-hour resignation of one of the School District's teachers. By letter dated August 29, 1972, the Superintendent advised Appellant as follows "I wish to inform you that I am recommending you to the Bellafonte Area Board of Education for a secondary math teaching position for the 1972-73 school term. The Board will take action on this recommendation at their next meeting to be held September 19, 1972. . . . P.S. This is your authority to report for work."

Appellant reported to work and taught for four school days, until a teachers' strike interrupted her duties. On or about September 20, 1972, Appellant received the following letter from the Superintendent:

"At the regular meeting of the Bellefonte Area Board of Education held September 19, 1972, no action was taken on the recommendation for your election as a math teacher in the Bellafonte Area School District. Because no action was taken your services are terminated, effective immediately. You will receive pay for four days, September 5-8.

"Thank you for filling a vacancy during our initial days of school."

On December 15, 1975, Appellant filed an action in mandamus seeking reinstatement without loss of compensation and fringe benefits. The School Board filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer which were sustained by the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County.

It is clear that if Appellant were in fact hired by the School Board as a temporary professional employe and subsequently dismissed, the Board's failure to comply with the dismissal procedures set forth in Section 1108 of the Public School Code of 1949 (Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, As amended, 24 P.S. § 11-1108, would require a reversal of the lower court. Section 1101 defines "temporary professional employe" as anyone "who has been Employed to perform, for a limited time, the duties of a newly created position or of a regular professional employe whose services have been terminated by death, resignation, suspension or removal." (Emphasis added.)

In deciding whether the School Board "employed" Appellant, we must consider Section 508 of the Code, 24 P.S. § 5-508, which provides in pertinent part:

"The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school directors in every school district, duly recorded, showing how each member voted, shall be required in order to take action on the following subjects:

". . .fir

"Appointing . . . teachers.

". . .tin

"Entering into contracts of any kind . . . where the amount involved exceeds one hundred dollars ($100).

"Fixing salaries or compensation of . . . teachers . . . .

". . . sa

"Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall render such acts of the board of school directors void and unforcible."

It is undisputed that Appellant had no contract with the School District and that the School Board never voted to hire her. Therefore, we can only conclude that she is not a "professional employe" entitled to the protections of Section 1108. See Department of Education v. Jersey Shore Area School District, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 624, 353 A.2d 691 (1976); See also Gordon v. Board of Directors of West Side Area Vocational Technical School,21 Pa.Cmwlth. 616, 347 A.2d 347 (1975).

Appellant argues that although the School Board did not act to hire her, the Superintendent, as agent of the School District, had the authority to hire her, and did in fact do so. She asks that we reverse the lower court and afford her the opportunity to establish, at trial, an agency relationship between the Superintendent and the Board.

It is clear to us...