Tomlinson by Tomlinson v. Pleasant Valley School Dist.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1984 |
| Citation | 479 A.2d 1169,84 Pa.Cmwlth. 518 |
| Parties | , 19 Ed. Law Rep. 587 Andrea TOMLINSON, by her parents and natural guardians, Leon G. TOMLINSON, and Helen Tomlinson v. PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Nancy BIRD, by her parents and natural guardians, Samuel BIRD and Nancy Bird v. PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appeal of PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Mark S. Love, Mervine, Brown, Newman, Williams & Mishkin, P.C., Stroudsburg, Daniel M. Corveleyn, Stroudsburg, for appellant.
William H. Robinson, Hiscott & Robinson, Stroudsburg, for Andrea Tomlinson, et al.
Jeffrey G. Velander, Stroudsburg, for Nancy Bird, et al.
Before WILLIAMS, BARRY and BLATT, JJ.
The Pleasant Valley School District (appellant) appeals a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County modifying an order of the Board of School Directors of the Pleasant Valley School District (Board).
On September 20, 1982, two ninth grade students, Andrea Tomlinson and Nancy Bird, were participating as cheerleaders at a junior varsity football game. While at the game, the two students were offered a drink from a Pepsi-Cola bottle by a student from a different school. Each girl took a sip and, after realizing that the soft drink was mixed with whiskey, they, nevertheless, each took a second sip. Their cheerleading coach was informed of this and promptly reported them to the proper authorities. As a result of this incident the students received an immediate 10 day suspension and, after a hearing was held before the Board on September 30, 1982, the following order was issued:
It is the adjudication of the Board of Directors of the Pleasant Valley School District which hereby orders that Andrea Tomlinson and Nancy Bird be expelled as students in the Pleasant Valley School District until January 3, 1983, with the School District to provide each student with homebound instruction as arranged by the School Administrators pursuant to Pennsylvania Department of Education Requirements. It is further directed and ordered that Andrea Tomlinson and Nancy Bird attend ten (10) weekly counselling sessions under the direction of the local Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program either in Lehighton or Stroudsburg, and join in an intake counselling program under the direction of the Pleasant Valley School District in accordance with the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program. It is further directed that Andrea Tomlinson and Nancy Bird be excluded from all school sponsored social functions including extra-curricular and co-curricular activities for the 1982-83 school year.
The students appealed to the trial court, which heard the appeal de novo and issued an order modifying the decision of the Board by eliminating the expulsion provision and requesting that arrangements be made for the students to attend a counselling program within the school rather than attending sessions at the local Mental Health/Mental Retardation program in either Lehighton or Stroudsburg. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in modifying the Board's order because its scope of review was limited by Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b). That section reads as follows:
Complete record.--In the event a full and complete record of the proceedings before the local agency was made, the court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by the agency. After hearing the court shall affirm the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monaghan v. Board of School Directors of Reading School Dist.
...as to the manner of implementing a deficient record before the local agency. See Tomlinson by Tomlinson v. Pleasant Valley School District, 84 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 518, 479 A.2d 1169 (1984) (where no record of proceedings before the school board which lead to the expulsion of students was ma......
-
Kish on Behalf of Kish v. Annville-Cleona School Dist., ANNVILLE-CLEONA
...proceedings, the court is empowered to make its own findings of fact and impose a new penalty. Tomlinson v. Pleasant Valley School District, 84 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 518, 479 A.2d 1169 (1984). Otherwise, a court is bound to affirm the local agency adjudication unless there has been a violatio......
-
McCarthy v. Mize
...Sica, the purposes of taxpayer's actions and class actions "are not wholly unrelated." 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 100, 465 A.2d at 93. [84 Pa.Cmwlth. 518] Because certification as a modern class action would advance no salutary purpose, we affirm. NOW, August 15, 1984, the order of the Cour......