From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlynton School Dist. v. Keisling

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 18, 1980
410 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)

Opinion

Argued December 5, 1979

January 18, 1980.

Schools — Public School Code of 1949, Act 1949, March 10, P.L. 30 — Statutory remedy — Agreement to accept demotion.

1. The Public School Code of 1949, Act 1949, March 10, P.L. 30 does not provide an exclusive statutory remedy for resolving disputes where the basis for the cause of action is not a contested demotion but the breach of a signed agreement to accept a demotion under certain conditions. [556-7]

Argued December 5, 1979, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., BLATT and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 208 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of John C. Keisling, Plaintiff v. Carlynton School District, Defendant, No. 6424 of 1978.

Action in assumpsit in Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. School district filed preliminary objections. Preliminary objections overruled. WETTICK, J. School district appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Larry P. Gaitens, with him Lucchino, Gaitens Hough, for appellant.

Raymond F. Keisling, with him Will Keisling, and Joseph M. Ludwig, for appellee.


The issue before this Court is the propriety of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County's order overruling the preliminary objections of the appellant (defendant) school district to the appellee's (plaintiff) complaint in assumpsit. The complaint alleged a breach of contract by the defendant in its failure to pay plaintiff a salary increase which defendant allegedly owed in accordance with an agreement reached by plaintiff and defendant in which plaintiff agreed to a demotion from high school principal to elementary school principal and defendant agreed that the plaintiff's salary scale would remain that of a high school principal.

Defendant's preliminary objections contend that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in this litigation because the exclusive procedure for resolving disputes involving the demotion of a professional employee is found in Section 1151 of Article XI of the Public School Code of 1949 (Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P. S. § 11-1151. Defendant relies on our decision in Robinson v. Abington Education Association, 32 Pa. Commw. 563, 379 A.2d 1371 (1977) wherein we held that an action in equity was not available to contest an alleged improper demotion.

Judge R. STANTON WETTICK of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County found that the plaintiff was not contesting his demotion. Indeed, the basis for the action was a signed agreement to the demotion. Therefore, Section 1151 of the Code was inapplicable and plaintiff had no statutory remedy for challenging the defendant's refusal to pay him under the agreement. We cannot improve on Judge WETTICK's able opinion, dated January 4, 1979, docketed at No. 6424 of 1978, and will affirm on that basis.

Accordingly, we will enter the following

ORDER

AND NOW, January 18, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated January 4, 1979, and docketed at No. 6424 of 1978 is affirmed.

This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSALLE.


Summaries of

Carlynton School Dist. v. Keisling

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 18, 1980
410 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
Case details for

Carlynton School Dist. v. Keisling

Case Details

Full title:Carlynton School District, Appellant v. John C. Keisling, Appellee

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 18, 1980

Citations

410 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
410 A.2d 921

Citing Cases

Keisling v. Carlynton Sch. Dist

We affirmed, based on the opinion of the trial court, because the appellant was not contesting his demotion,…