T.G.A. v. Dep't of Educ. & Prof'l Standards & Practices Comm'n

• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Writing for the Court: OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK
• Citation: T.G.A. v. Dep't of Educ. & Prof'l Standards & Practices Comm'n, 302 A.3d 830 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023)
• Docket Number: 471 M.D. 2022,No. 471 M.D. 2022
• Decision Date: 12 September 2023
• Parties: T.G.A., Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and Professional Standards and Practices Commission, Respondents

302 A.3d 830

T.G.A., Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and Professional Standards and Practices Commission, Respondents

No. 471 M.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued February 8, 2023

Decided September 12, 2023

Joseph F. Canamucio and Scott Stedjan, Harrisburg, for Petitioner.

Kevin Bradford, Philadelphia, for Respondents.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge, HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

CASE SEALED

OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK

T.G.A. (Educator) ¹ filed a petition for review in our original jurisdiction seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief from the Department of Education (Department) and the Professional Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) (together, Respondents) regarding Respondents’ maintenance of Educator's discipline record on their websites. ² Educator objects to Respondents’ continued listing of his immediate suspension on their websites when he was acquitted of the underlying criminal charges and those criminal charges were expunged. Educator seeks review of the issue of whether Section 15(d) of the Educator Discipline Act (Act), 24 P.S. § 2070.15(d), ³ which requires the Commission and the Department to make all adjudications imposing discipline available on their websites, is unconstitutional as applied to Educator by harming his right to pursue lawful employment as a teacher and to his reputation, when the Commission's listing references criminal charges of which he was acquitted and which were expunged. Educator and Respondents filed Cross-Applications for Summary Relief which are now before us. After careful review, we deny in part and grant in part both Educator's and Respondents’ cross-applications for summary relief, grant Educator's application for a permanent injunction, and deny Educator's application for mandamus relief. Specifically, because we conclude that Respondents’ maintenance of Educator's discipline record that continues to list the criminal charges of which he was acquitted and which were expunged on their websites is unconstitutional as applied to Educator, we direct Respondents to remove references to Educator's criminal charges from Educator's discipline history on the Commission's website.

Educator and Respondents were before this Court for consideration of Educator's application for a preliminary injunction, and Respondents’ preliminary objections, which were denied and overruled, respectively, in a memorandum opinion filed on November 1, 2022. See T.G.A. v. Department of Education (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 471 M.D. 2022, filed November 1, 2022) (Wojcik, J.)(single-judge op.) ( T.G.A. I ). The facts as stipulated to by the parties and summarized by the Court are as follows.

On August 21, 2017, Educator was charged with aggravated indecent assault, unlawful restraint, and indecent assault for actions involving an adult he met on a dating website. T.G.A. I , slip op. at 1-2. After a hearing on February 28, 2018, in which Educator chose not to participate, Educator's teaching certificate was immediately suspended pursuant to Section 9.2(a)(1) of the Act, added by the Act of December 22, 2000, P.L. 918, 24 P.S. § 2070.9b(a)(1), which requires the Commission to direct the Department to suspend a teacher's certificate upon being indicted with a crime set forth in Section 111(e)(1) through (3) of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code), ⁴ when accompanied by a finding that the educator poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of students or other persons in the schools of the Commonwealth. T.G.A. I , slip op. at 2. Pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act, a record of Educator's immediate suspension was posted on Respondents’ websites. Id. On October 11, 2018, Educator was acquitted of all criminal charges in a bench trial. Id. Thereafter, the Commission directed the Department to lift Educator's suspension as required by Section 9.2(a)(1)(iii) of the Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.9b(a)(1)(iii), because Educator was acquitted of the charges. Id. Notice that Educator's suspension was lifted appears on Respondents’ websites, but the charges underlying his immediate suspension continue to be listed on the Commission's website. ⁵ Educator continues to reside in Pennsylvania, his Pennsylvania certificate is inactive for reasons unrelated to any discipline, and he remains employed as a teacher by a school district in Ohio, which is not far from his home. Id. In a letter dated June 9, 2022, Educator, through counsel, wrote to the Department requesting that the Department remove its publication of his criminal charges from its website, which the Department did not do. Id. See Petitioner's Brief in Support of Summary Relief, Exhibit I.

The Court overruled Respondents’ first preliminary objection because the defense of sovereign immunity does not apply to the relief sought by Educator. T.G.A. I , slip op. at 6-8. The Court concluded that because Educator "seeks to restrain Respondents from engaging in conduct he alleges is unconstitutional, the sovereign immunity defense does not apply." Id. at 8. The Court overruled Respondents’ second preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer because it was not clear and free from doubt that Educator is not entitled to relief. Id. at 8. The Court also denied Educator's request for a preliminary injunction because Educator failed to show that a preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent any immediate harm or that he was denied employment as a teacher because of the Department's listing. Id. at 8-11. Respondents and Educator filed Cross-Applications for Summary Relief that are now before us. ⁶

As to the employment issue, Educator and Respondents agree on the applicable legal framework for review, as follows. For substantive due process rights to attach, there must first be a deprivation of a property right that is constitutionally protected. Khan v. State Board of Auctioneer Examiners , 577 Pa. 166, 842 A.2d 936, 946 (2004). Pursuant to article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, ⁷ all persons in the Commonwealth "possess a protected interest in the practice of their profession." Khan , 842 A.2d at 946. Once an individual has acquired a license to practice a particular profession, "the licensed professional has a protected property right in the practice of that profession." Id. "Nevertheless, the right to practice a chosen profession is subject to the lawful exercise of the power of the State to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals by promulgating laws and regulations that reasonably regulate occupations." Id.

To constitute a lawful exercise of the state's police power, social and economic legislation must first be directed toward a valid state objective. [ ] To withstand a substantive due process challenge, a statute or regulation must seek to achieve a valid state objective by means that are rationally related to that objective. [ ] The rational relationship standard of substantive due process by which legislation is judicially measured is that the statute or regulation at issue must have a real and substantial relationship to the object sought to be obtained.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that certain property rights in the continued practice of one's profession are sufficiently important to surround them with numerous legal protections, "including disciplinary hearings that are consistent with procedural due process." Khan , 842 A.2d at 947.

Indeed, this Court has unequivocally held that the right to pursue a profession is not a fundamental right for substantive due process purposes, which would entitle it to strict scrutiny, and legislation infringing upon that right need only be examined to determine whether there is a real and substantial relationship to a governmental interest.

Id. (internal citations omitted.) Whether a statute is wise, or whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result, are matters for the legislature, not the courts. Id. "As long as there is a basis for finding that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, the statute must be upheld." Id.

As to his employment rights, Educator seeks declaratory, ⁸ injunctive, ⁹ and mandamus ¹⁰ relief to compel Respondents to remove his discipline listing from their websites. Educator argues that he was unable to participate in the hearing before his immediate suspension was imposed, because he would have been compelled to potentially incriminate himself while criminal charges were pending. Educator argues that Respondents did not notify him of the option to provide an affidavit agreeing not to teach while criminal charges were pending. See Section 9.2(a)(1)(ii) of the Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.9b(a)(1)(ii). Educator argues that his continued association with criminal charges of which he was acquitted and which were expunged is not rationally related to Respondents’ legitimate governmental interest in either student or staff safety. In the alternative, Educator argues that Respondents’ actions in maintaining his discipline record are arbitrary.

Respondents contend that their right to regulate Educator's employment is a legitimate exercise of their police powers, and that maintenance of Educator's discipline listing is rationally related to the Act's purpose, which is to safeguard school students and staff. Respondents object to Educator's request for declaratory relief because he has not exhausted the administrative processes available to him. Respondents argue that Educator could have participated in the pre-suspension hearing without incriminating himself by offering argument only, or by offering testimony or evidence from others to show that he was not a danger to students or staff. Respondents also note that, as specifically provided...