Medina v. Harrisburg Sch. Dist.

273 A.3d 33

Kenneth MEDINA, Appellant

v.HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT

No. 494 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued December 13, 2021

Decided March 16, 2022

Zachary E. Nahass, York, for Appellant.

Richard B. Galtman, Huntingdon Valley, for Appellee.

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON

Kenneth Medina (Medina) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (trial court). The trial court affirmed a decision of the Harrisburg School District (District) by which, according to the trial court's characterization, the District removed Medina from his position as its Business Administrator. Upon review, we affirm the trial court's order, but on different grounds from those on which the trial court based its decision.¹

I. Background

A. The District's Reassignment of Medina

The District hired Medina as its Business Administrator in August 2016. He received a satisfactory performance review in February 2017, but thereafter, the District became concerned about various aspects of Medina's performance. The parties dispute the extent to which the District raised these concerns directly with Medina prior to June 2017. However, on June 29, 2017, the District's Superintendent handed Medina a letter of reprimand (June 2017 Letter) listing several concerns regarding Medina's job performance:

• You have failed to demonstrate leadership of Business Department staff, contractors, building maintenance and payroll function, resulting in payroll and invoice errors; bills not being paid timely; and unacceptable facilities cleanliness and maintenance.

• Consistent payroll errors and failure to administer the TCP/AESOP^[2] systems. Recent reconciliation audit was not communicated to employees prior to employees[’] pay being impacted. Employees[’] pay were [sic] significantly impacted creating financial hardship and ill will with employees.

• Disastrous implementation of TCP, contract approvals and payroll changes [D]istrictwide; ineffective communication with administrators, departments and staff; generating confusion and misunderstanding resulting in compensation and account payment delays.

• Incomplete budget analysis of existing expenses, projection of anticipated income for the 2017 – 2018 ... District budget. Your projection failed to provide a complete and accurate assessment of the [D]istrict's financial issues, concerns and impact on future labor expenses. You failed to adequately present immediate financial revenue to meet future financial needs.

Reproduced Record (RR) at 600.³ The June 2017 Letter also informed Medina that "[a]nother breach of confidence in carrying out any of [his] expected managerial roles [would] result in additional disciplinary action up to and including employment termination." Id. at 601.

On July 27, 2017, the District's Human Resources Director sent Medina a letter (July 2017 Letter) notifying him of possible disciplinary action based on the following allegations:

1) Failure to notify the Superintendent of a large vehicle loss.

2) Submitted Budget to [the Pennsylvania Department of Education] with incorrect totals and figures.

3) Failure to schedule and execute building renovations at John Harris and other [D]istrict properties[.]

4) Failure to provide leadership, execution and implementation of business related responsibilities and duties as stated in Letter of Reprimand dated June 28, 2017 [sic].

5) Failure to make arrangement for mail pickup and delivery at the [D]istrict's properties.

RR at 597. The July 2017 Letter informed Medina of the District's position that the accusations, if proven, involved conduct that "may constitute incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth or other improper conduct." Id. The July 2017 Letter also placed Medina on administrative leave and notified him of a Loudermill⁴ hearing to occur on August 7, 2017, concerning the notice of allegations. Id. at 597-98.

At the August 2017 Loudermill hearing, Medina contended the charges against him were too vague and made a response difficult, but he nonetheless explained his position regarding each of the allegations. See generally RR at 505-79. On August 25, 2017, the District sent Medina a letter, captioned as a notice of discipline, informing him that the District's administration had concluded that he had engaged in the alleged conduct and that the administration was recommending to the School Board (Board) that it reassign Medina to the position of Program Grants Administrator, with a substantial salary reduction. RR at 885-86.

B. The Board's Adjudication

Medina requested a hearing before the Board, either pursuant to Section 1089 of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code),⁵ 24 P.S. § 10-1089, or pursuant to Board Policy 326.⁶ The Board granted Medina's request,⁷ heard evidence over three days in October 2017, and received a number of exhibits from the parties. See generally RR at 3-846. The Board then issued an adjudication.

The Board found as facts that Medina had no written employment contract and was not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. RR at 851. The Board further found that its policy did not require any evaluation of Medina's performance as Business Administrator as a prerequisite to reassigning him to another position. Id. at 858.

The Board further found that Medina failed to follow through on various assigned tasks, implement a Board decision to purchase a golf cart for use at the high school, obtain signed contracts regarding work on one of the District's buildings and a consortium agreement with Dauphin County Technical School, track execution of a contract for special education services, direct timely payments to contracted special education professionals and a District employee, make timely fund transfers for the District's Explorer Program, timely track a maintenance program regarding a school playground, timely act on a sports consultant contract, maintain effective communication with Business Department staff, timely respond to information requests from the Board, function effectively in the budgeting process, timely pay bills and invoices including insurance premiums, timely resolve a teacher overpayment, timely implement the District's TimeClock Plus program, timely fund a trust in payment of a special education student settlement, timely notify the Superintendent of a large vehicle loss, and generally provide the leadership, execution, and implementation required by his position as Business Administrator. RR at 853-57. The Board further found that Medina improperly acted against a parent/teacher school cleanup project without authority to do so and presented budget documents with incorrect figures. Id. at 855.

The Board credited the Superintendent's testimony that she had repeated meetings with Medina concerning his inadequate performance and attempted to work with him to improve his performance, but that he failed to improve his performance. RR at 856. The Board also credited the Superintendent's testimony that she had meetings with Medina concerning a possible reassignment to Operations Manager and that he initially agreed to the reassignment and acknowledged he was having difficulty performing his duties as Business Administrator. Id . at 855, 856 & 858. However, he later refused to accept a proffered revised and reduced job description. Id. at 857. The Board then assigned him a position as Program Grants Administrator. Id.

The Board expressly found as a fact that Medina's change of position constituted a "reassignment from the position of Business Administrator to the position of Program Grant[s] Administrator." RR at 857. The Board concluded that Section 1089 of the School Code, which relates to removal of a Business Administrator, was inapplicable because Medina's reassignment did not constitute a removal under the School Code. Id. at 859. Accordingly, the Board concluded that although it provided Medina with a hearing, none was required under the School Code. Id.

Nonetheless, the Board determined that even if Section 1089 applied, Medina received an adequate notice and opportunity to be heard and the District presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of showing that Medina engaged in conduct that constituted willful neglect of his job duties and violation of school laws, including failure to follow directives and other improper conduct. RR at 860. The Board observed that willful neglect of duties, willful failure to follow school laws, and improper conduct all constitute separate valid grounds for dismissal or other discipline and that the Board had discretion to reassign Medina as a lesser form of discipline. Id. at 860-61. The Board stated there is no legal requirement for progressive discipline of a Business Administrator. Id. at 861.

Regarding Board Policy 326, the Board explained that the policy "provides for a complaint procedure and defines ‘complaint’ as any unresolved problem concerning application or interpretation of [f]ederal or [s]tate laws and regulations, Board policies, rules, procedures, and written administrative regulations." RR at 860. The Board concluded that Medina's reassignment "does not fit the complaint definition or scenario in that it does not constitute a violation of any [f]ederal or [s]tate laws and regulations, Board policies, rules, procedures, or written administrative regulations." Id.

Based on its findings and conclusions, the Board issued its adjudication adopting the District's recommendation to reassign Medina from the position of Business Administrator to Program Grants Administrator, effective November 29, 2017. RR at 862.

C. The Trial Court's Decision

Medina petitioned for review in the trial court, which affirmed the Board's adjudication without taking additional evidence.⁸ Unlike the Board, the trial court opined that Medina's...