HOLLIDAYSBURG — A Blair County judge is weighing arguments in a Hollidaysburg Area School District dispute over a graphic novel and the related 10-day suspension of a junior high school teacher.
Judge David B. Consiglio heard Thursday from attorneys representing the school district and the Hollidaysburg Area Education Association that have been at odds since the fall of 2022 when English teacher Nicole Stouffer took a copy of “Gender Queer” into her classroom while she was involved in her own study of banned books.
While both sides seemed to agree that Stouffer never shared the book with students, the district advised Stouffer in a
Dec. 9, 2022, letter that she was being suspended for 10 days. The letter accused her of showing poor professional judgment by taking the book to school and allowing it to be on her desk in full sight of students.
After the teacher’s union challenged the district’s action, a hearing was convened Sept. 8, 2023, before arbitrator Gregory Gleason. In January, Gleason ruled that based on the union’s negotiated contract, the district wasn’t in a position to hand down a 10-day suspension to a teacher with no prior discipline history.
Attorney Amy Marshall, on behalf of the education association, asked Consiglio in court and in a legal brief to affirm the arbitrator’s ruling. She chastised the district for describing the arbitrator’s conclusions as irrational and emphasized that the arbitrator thoroughly examined the district’s actions and concluded that it didn’t have just cause to issue the 10-day suspension.
School district attorney Jennifer L. Dambeck, in court and in a legal brief seeking to have the arbitrator’s ruling overturned, pointed to then-Superintendent Robert Gildea’s Dec. 9, 2022, letter to Stouffer informing her of the 10-day suspension.
In that letter, Gildea referenced a conversation with Stouffer on Aug. 29, 2022, when he told her to stop asking students to identify their preferred pronouns.
The superintendent also stated that on Oct. 25, 2022, the administration learned that she had had a graphic novel in her classroom.
Dambeck maintains that the arbitrator overlooked the body of the Dec. 9, 2022, letter.
“The grievant’s discipline was about extreme lack of professional and prudent judgment by bringing in a sexually graphic novel and leaving it on her desk for 15 school days,” Dambeck said.
In court Thursday, Marshall countered that the teacher never showed the book to anybody.
When Consiglio mentioned that it was on the teacher’s desk, Marshall pointed out that Stouffer’s desk was at the rear of the classroom so students weren’t passing by when they entered.
In its appeal, the district also took the position that if the arbitrator’s ruling is allowed to stand, then there is a substantial risk that other students will be subjected to similar actions in the future. Marshall disagreed in addressing that position and pointed out that despite the arbitration ruling, the district still retains policy-making authority over conduct and activities within the district.
In Consiglio’s examination of the debate, it is anticipated that the judge could reference a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling and a 2017 state Commonwealth Court ruling addressing arbitration disputes.
In the 1999 case, the court concluded that the arbitrator’s award will be upheld if the interpretation can rationally be derived from the collective bargaining agreement.
“That is to say, a court will only vacate an arbitrator’s award where the award indisputably and genuinely is without foundation in, or fails to logically flow from, the collective bargaining agreement,” the Supreme Court concluded.
In the 2017 case, the Commonwealth Court recognized an arbitrator’s findings of fact as binding and that reviewing courts were not to undertake any independent factual analysis.
Mirror Staff Writer Kay
Stephens is at 814-946-7456.
