holding that where circumstances admit of more than one possible realignment, the District may consider the impact of each on the educational program to determine which is most sound, so long as within the chosen plan more-senior employees are provided with the opportunity to fill positions for which they are certificated and which are being filled by less-senior employees
How later courts described this case
- holding that where circumstances admit of more than one possible realignment, the District may consider the impact of each on the educational program to determine which is most sound, so long as within the chosen plan more-senior employees are provided with the opportunity to fill positions for which they are certificated and which are being filled by less-senior employees
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that the order of Commonwealth Court upholding the suspensions of the appellant teachers herein who had more seniority than others with the same certification must be reversed, I object to the attempt of the majority to read into section 11-1125.1 of the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, as amended 24 P.S. § 1125.1, any intention on the part of the Legislature to permit school administrators to continue to exercise discretion in the realignment of professional staff. See Duncan v. Rochester Area School Board, 524 Pa. 254 , 571 A.2d 365 (1990) (Larsen, J., dissenting); Gibbons v. New Castle Area School District, 518 Pa. 443 , 543 A.2d 1087 (1988) (Larsen, J., dissenting).
In addition, I strenuously object to the “relief” provided by the majority, and I would order the reinstatement with back pay of those teachers improperly suspended. There is simply no reason or precedent for penalizing these litigants *270 any further, especially in view of the fact that the delay was caused by the “system.”
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.