Horosko v. School District of Mount Pleasant Tp. Et al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 19, 1939
A teacher is always expected to exhibit the best morals and etiquette. A teacher should always command the respect and goodwill of the community. However, the school district of Mount Pleasant had trouble with a teacher who was married to a man who owned a restaurant. Beer was sold in the restaurant; a pin-ball and slot machine were also maintained. The restaurant was across the road from the school and the teacher worked there in the nights and during summer vacations as a bartender. The teacher showed the costumers to play the pin-ball machine, in the presence of the students whom she taught in the school. Furthermore, she was rated by the superintendent, under the rating card approved by the Department of Education, as 43% competent, a rating of 50% being average rating.
As teachers are supposed to depict the best morals and are considered to be ideal for their students, the community and the school district were troubled by the fact that she was working in that restaurant. This did not leave a good impression on the students and the school district was afraid that the students might follow her foot steps and stray from good ethics.
Thus, the school district fired the teacher on the basis of “immortality” and “incompetence”. The case was brought to the court of common pleas, which sided with the school and said that the school district was justified in dismissing the teacher based on not being able to maintain a good reputation in the community and with her students.
The case was then brought to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which reversed the decision. The court focused its attention on the meaning of the word “Immorality” as used in common and approved language, which means “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.” Even though the community generally regarded gambling as immoral, this did not mean that the teacher was incompetent in the subjects that she taught in school or with her students. She was a responsible teacher in the school environment and she must be given a chance to continue teaching in the school.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, it reversed the decision of the Superior Court, ordered that the teacher should not be able to maintain her job as a teacher of the school as she would be setting a bad example to the students. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then defined the terms “immoral” and “incompetence” “according to their common and approved usage” (citation). So, “immorality” is defined as “conduct inconsistent with moral rectitude” and “incompetence” is defined as “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge a required duty” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. p. 945).
According to these definitions Horosko lacked the ability of the special qualities required to be a teacher. She should have been able to maintain a good reputation and respect in the community, even if it means a deprivation of one vocation.
Nancy J. Zelno
V.
Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nancy J. Zelno was a tenured professional employee in the Lincoln School District. She was assigned to teach in the alternative education program. She taught in a rehabilitation center for students who were undergoing rehabilitation and treatment for alcohol and treatment for drug use and abuse.
In the Month of May 1999, she was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), which was a misdemeanor II level of offense. This was the second time she was found of DUI offence that led to confiscation of her driving license. Prior to this, she was also caught driving twice while her license was suspended. She has also been to the jail two consecutive weekends in the school year.
During the summer of 2000, her employer found out about her offences and immediately started dismissal proceedings on the basis that her conduct violated the Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949 regarding immorality and intemperance.
The school board held a hearing and listened to the witnesses of the community within the jurisdiction of the school district who all testified that Zalno’s behavior offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for the students. After the hearing the board unanimously terminated Zelno on the basis of immorality under the School Code. Zelno then appealed to the Secretary of Education but the Secretary also affirmed the board’s decision.
Zelno then brought the case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arguing that her dismissal was not justified as the witnesses could not identify any particular person whose morals has been corrupted or that her crimes interfered with her ability to teach.
The court looked back at the cases, which has set precedent. In Horosko v. Mt Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939), immorality was defined as a “course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate.”
Clearly, Zelno’s three offenses represented misconduct and immorality. It indicated not a single act of irresponsibility but a pattern of actions that not only damaged her but also posed a threat to the community. This was an example of immoral conduct. The nature of her job required that she set a good example for the students who are already getting treatment for alcoholic-related problems. However, she proved herself to be immoral and incompetent for the job because she abused alcohol and was convicted of DUI. The Court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 19, 1939
A teacher is always expected to exhibit the best morals and etiquette. A teacher should always command the respect and goodwill of the community. However, the school district of Mount Pleasant had trouble with a teacher who was married to a man who owned a restaurant. Beer was sold in the restaurant; a pin-ball and slot machine were also maintained. The restaurant was across the road from the school and the teacher worked there in the nights and during summer vacations as a bartender. The teacher showed the costumers to play the pin-ball machine, in the presence of the students whom she taught in the school. Furthermore, she was rated by the superintendent, under the rating card approved by the Department of Education, as 43% competent, a rating of 50% being average rating.
As teachers are supposed to depict the best morals and are considered to be ideal for their students, the community and the school district were troubled by the fact that she was working in that restaurant. This did not leave a good impression on the students and the school district was afraid that the students might follow her foot steps and stray from good ethics.
Thus, the school district fired the teacher on the basis of “immortality” and “incompetence”. The case was brought to the court of common pleas, which sided with the school and said that the school district was justified in dismissing the teacher based on not being able to maintain a good reputation in the community and with her students.
The case was then brought to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which reversed the decision. The court focused its attention on the meaning of the word “Immorality” as used in common and approved language, which means “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.” Even though the community generally regarded gambling as immoral, this did not mean that the teacher was incompetent in the subjects that she taught in school or with her students. She was a responsible teacher in the school environment and she must be given a chance to continue teaching in the school.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, it reversed the decision of the Superior Court, ordered that the teacher should not be able to maintain her job as a teacher of the school as she would be setting a bad example to the students. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then defined the terms “immoral” and “incompetence” “according to their common and approved usage” (citation). So, “immorality” is defined as “conduct inconsistent with moral rectitude” and “incompetence” is defined as “Lack of ability or fitness to discharge a required duty” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. p. 945).
According to these definitions Horosko lacked the ability of the special qualities required to be a teacher. She should have been able to maintain a good reputation and respect in the community, even if it means a deprivation of one vocation.
Nancy J. Zelno
V.
Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nancy J. Zelno was a tenured professional employee in the Lincoln School District. She was assigned to teach in the alternative education program. She taught in a rehabilitation center for students who were undergoing rehabilitation and treatment for alcohol and treatment for drug use and abuse.
In the Month of May 1999, she was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), which was a misdemeanor II level of offense. This was the second time she was found of DUI offence that led to confiscation of her driving license. Prior to this, she was also caught driving twice while her license was suspended. She has also been to the jail two consecutive weekends in the school year.
During the summer of 2000, her employer found out about her offences and immediately started dismissal proceedings on the basis that her conduct violated the Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949 regarding immorality and intemperance.
The school board held a hearing and listened to the witnesses of the community within the jurisdiction of the school district who all testified that Zalno’s behavior offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for the students. After the hearing the board unanimously terminated Zelno on the basis of immorality under the School Code. Zelno then appealed to the Secretary of Education but the Secretary also affirmed the board’s decision.
Zelno then brought the case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arguing that her dismissal was not justified as the witnesses could not identify any particular person whose morals has been corrupted or that her crimes interfered with her ability to teach.
The court looked back at the cases, which has set precedent. In Horosko v. Mt Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939), immorality was defined as a “course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate.”
Clearly, Zelno’s three offenses represented misconduct and immorality. It indicated not a single act of irresponsibility but a pattern of actions that not only damaged her but also posed a threat to the community. This was an example of immoral conduct. The nature of her job required that she set a good example for the students who are already getting treatment for alcoholic-related problems. However, she proved herself to be immoral and incompetent for the job because she abused alcohol and was convicted of DUI. The Court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
