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.

ROBERT HOMAN v. BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT (08/15/79)

decided: August 15, 1979.

ROBERT HOMAN, APPELLANT
v.
BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County in case of Robert Homan v. Blue Ridge School District, No. 56 January Term, 1978.

COUNSEL

Anthony D. Newman, with him Thomas W. Scott and Killian & Gephart, for appellant.

James A. Kelly, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 90]

Robert Homan, a temporary professional employee for two years in the Blue Ridge School District (District), appeals its refusal to renew his contract for the 1977-78 school year and accord him tenure. He argues that the District's decision was based on evaluations and ratings of his performance that did not satisfy the requirements of Section 1123 of the Public

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 91]

School Code of 1949 (Code),*fn1 24 P.S. § 11-1123, and was arbitrary and capricious.

Homan served as a junior high school guidance counselor during the school years 1975-76 and 1976-77, after which the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Emory Stanley, recommended to the Blue Ridge School Board (Board) that Homan's contract not be renewed because Homan's performance was unsatisfactory. As a result of his unsatisfactory ratings and the Board's acceptance of Stanley's recommendation, Homan was ineligible for tenured status as a professional employee. Section 1108(b) of the Code, 24 P.S. § 11-1108(b). See also DiCello v. Board of Directors of Riverside School District, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 39, 380 A.2d 944 (1977).

Homan appealed the Board's determination. A hearing was held on the denial and testimony heard by the Board which thereafter adopted a resolution refusing to re-employ Homan. He then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County which affirmed the Board's adjudication.

On appeal, Homan raises several objections to the procedure used by the District in rating his performance. First, Homan challenges the competence of those who submitted ratings of his performance to Stanley: the Assistant Superintendent, Martin Monaghan, and William Printz, a Middle School Principal who is certified in counseling. Both of these men separately observed Homan teaching a full class and conversed with Homan and Homan's department head. Each gave Homan an over-all unsatisfactory rating in the areas of personality, preparation, technique and pupil reaction.

Section 1123 of the Code, 24 P.S. § 11-1123, provides in ...


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.