You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Barhight v. Board of Directors of the Bradford Area School District

Citations: 689 A.2d 327; 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 43; 1997 WL 33448Docket: No. 7 C.D. 1996

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; January 29, 1997; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves the appeal of a transportation supervisor whose employment was terminated by the Bradford Area School District Board, a decision affirmed by the McKean County Court of Common Pleas. The supervisor, Douglas Barhight, was found to have directed district employees to carry out personal tasks using district resources, violating Section 514 of the Public School Code of 1949, which permits termination for improper conduct. Despite admitting to the actions, Barhight contested that his conduct did not rise to the level of 'improper conduct,' as defined by precedent cases involving more egregious acts. The Board, supported by substantial evidence, identified twenty-five instances of misuse, and the court found the termination justified. Barhight's defenses, including claims of due process violations and lack of specific district policies, were dismissed, as they were not properly raised. The court also differentiated between 'improper conduct' and 'willful misconduct,' noting the less stringent standard of the former. Ultimately, the court upheld the termination, emphasizing the breach of trust and improper use of public resources.

Legal Issues Addressed

Comparison with 'Willful Misconduct' in Employment Law

Application: The court distinguished 'improper conduct' from 'willful misconduct,' applying a less stringent standard but still supporting termination.

Reasoning: The standards for 'willful misconduct' and 'improper conduct' differ, with the latter being less stringent, further justifying the Board's conclusions.

Interpretation of 'Improper Conduct' in Employment Termination

Application: Barhight's actions were examined against the standard of 'improper conduct' and found to meet this criterion despite his claims of no malicious intent.

Reasoning: Although Barhight acknowledges his actions, he argues they do not constitute 'improper conduct' as defined by Section 514, contrasting his case with previous rulings involving severe misconduct such as drug-related offenses and harassment.

Termination of Employment under Public School Code Section 514

Application: The court applied Section 514 to justify the termination of an employee for improper conduct, focusing on the misuse of district resources.

Reasoning: The Board identified twenty-five instances of this misconduct, concluding that Barhight neglected his duties and violated school laws, specifically Section 514 of the Public School Code of 1949, which allows for removal of employees for improper conduct.

Use of Public Resources for Personal Gain

Application: The misuse of district resources for personal tasks constituted a breach of trust and justified termination, regardless of the existence of explicit policies.

Reasoning: Barhight, as a supervisory figure, demonstrated a serious breach of trust. The Board determined that the district had no policy permitting personal use of its resources, supported by credible testimony from the District Superintendent, Maureen O’Mara.

Waiver of Due Process and Progressive Discipline Claims

Application: The court noted that claims regarding due process and progressive discipline were waived as they were not properly raised during the proceedings.

Reasoning: Despite Barhight's arguments regarding due process and progressive discipline, these issues were not properly raised and thus waived.