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.

BABETTE TRESSLER v. UPPER DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT (05/19/77)

decided: May 19, 1977.

BABETTE TRESSLER, MARILYN MANLEY, BARBARA KLOTZ AND GAIL VALENTINE, APPELLANTS
v.
UPPER DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Babette Tressler, Marilyn Manley, Barbara Klotz and Gail Valentine v. Upper Dublin School District, No. 75-15383.

COUNSEL

Richard W. Rogers, with him Rogers, King & Cole, for appellants.

Charles Potash, Solicitor, with him, of counsel, Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig & Garrity, for appellee.

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

Author: Wilkinson, Jr.

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 172]

In this case we are again confronted with the problems inherent in the suspension and terminations of professional and temporary professional employes due to declining enrollment. One professional employe and three temporary professional employes contest their suspension and terminations, respectively, pursuant to Sections 1124 and 1125 of the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 11-1124, 11-1125 (Code), by the Board of Directors of the Upper Dublin School District (Board). This suspension and these terminations were the result of resolutions adopted by the Board on April 29, 1975.*fn1 Subsequently,

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 173]

    appellants requested a hearing before the Board under the Local Agency Law, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, 53 P.S. § 11301. Hearings were held before the Board on the 10th and 15th of July 1975. A transcript was made of the hearings and both sides presented testimony. The Board adopted the findings of facts and conclusions of law presented by appellee which concluded that, a substantial decline in enrollment had occurred and that the suspensions and terminations were made in accordance with the code. Appellants next appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,*fn2 which affirmed the order of the Board.*fn3 This appeal followed. We affirm.

Two primary issues present themselves for resolution on appeal. First, was there a substantial decline in pupil enrollment, supported by the record? Second, if there was a substantial decline in pupil enrollment, were the procedures followed in the selection of the professional employe and temporary professional employes proper and in accordance with the Code?

Our scope of review is limited by Section 8 of the Local Agency Law, 53 P.S. § 11308, in that we must "affirm the action of the local agency unless we find a violation of appellant's constitutional rights, an

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 174]

    error of law or manifest abuse of discretion by the local agency, or that any necessary finding of fact made by the agency is not supported by substantial evidence." (Citations omitted.) Gabriel v. Trinity Area School ...


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.