Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Ethel McNeil Wolff v. Board of School Directors of the Chichester School District, No. 79-16821.
C. Norwood Wherry, for appellant.
Gregory J. Polischuk, with him Arthur Levy, of counsel, Levy and Surrick, for appellee.
Judges Rogers, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 197]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County which sustained a preliminary objection of the Board of School Directors of the Chichester School District (Board) in the nature of a motion to strike the amended complaint of Ethel McNeil Wolff (Appellant) for failure to exhaust an adequate statutory remedy.
Appellant initiated this litigation by the filing of a complaint in equity on October 18, 1979 wherein she alleged, inter alia, that she was employed as a professional
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 198]
employee by the Board on January 20, 1976 as a part-time psychologist; that she was not tendered a professional employee's contract; that her services were terminated by a letter from the Board on June 18, 1979 stating that her services were no longer required; and that at the insistence of the Board during the course of her employment, she executed the necessary papers to accomplish her reinstatement in the Public School Employees' Retirement System (Retirement System) under the provisions of the Public School Employees' Retirement Code, 24 Pa. C.S. § 8101 et seq. whereupon appropriate payments to the Retirement System were made by the Appellant and the Board but that on February 28, 1978, the Board unilaterally discontinued Appellant's membership in the Retirement System.
Appellant requested, inter alia, that the Court direct the Board to (a) reinstate her as a member of the Retirement System and (b) offer her a written professional contract for the 1979-80 school year.
Upon the filing of preliminary objections by the Board, the trial court entered an order sustaining the objection in the nature of a motion to strike for the Appellant's failure to exhaust or exercise an adequate statutory remedy. Leave was granted by the Court to Appellant to file an amended complaint.
Appellant timely filed an amended complaint. In that pleading, Appellant repeated almost verbatim the allegations of her original complaint ...