Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HUTNIK v. DUQUESNE SCHOOL DISTRICT (04/06/73)

decided: April 6, 1973.

HUTNIK
v.
DUQUESNE SCHOOL DISTRICT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Rosemary Hutnik v. School District of the City of Duquesne, No. 410 January Term, 1972.

COUNSEL

Ronald N. Watzman, with him Watzman, Levenson and Snyder, for appellant.

Norman M. Bartko, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Kramer.

Author: Kramer

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 388]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing a complaint in mandamus and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, Rosemary Hutnik (Hutnik), a temporary professional employe of the defendant, the School District of the City of Duquesne (School District), had been improperly dismissed by the School District. The complaint prayed for the reinstatement of Hutnik as a teacher and further, for back pay under her professional employe contract.

The matter was submitted to the court below on the pleadings and the transcript of the hearings held before the School Board. The record indicates that Hutnik was hired as a temporary professional employe by the

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 389]

School District for the school years 1969-70 and 1970-71. She allegedly performed her duties as a school teacher to August 12, 1971 when she was dismissed by the School Board. The School Board also refused to tender her a contract for the following school year.

Prior to her dismissal, Hutnik was notified by a letter dated June 21, 1971 of the charges made against her.*fn1 The letter enumerated the charges as follows:

"The general charges are incompetency and persistent negligence as revealed by your unsatisfactory ratings as a teacher.

"Specifically, the charges are:

"1. Ineffective pupil control and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.