BETHEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, 

Bette T. KRALL, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued May 3, 1982. Decided June 8, 1982.  

Before ROGERS, BLATT and CRAIG, JJ.

CRAIG, Judge.

The Bethel Park School District here appeals an ordcr of the Secretary of Education sustaining the appeal of Bette T. Krall, a professional employee, who was dismissed by the district for conduct considered immoral under Section 1122 of the Public School Code1.

Thc facts of the incident which resulted in Mrs. Krall's dismissal are not in dispute. Mrs. Krall had been a tenured professional employee of thc district since 1969, and was also an elected director of another school district in which she resides. In that latter capacity, Mrs. Krall wished to attend a conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 14 and 15, 1979. Having previously requcsted and been refused paid personal time off to attend conferences unrelated to her work in Bethel Park, Mrs. Krall did not request personal time off to attend this conference; instead, she simply informed her principal's secretary that she would be unavailable to perform her duties on the subject dates.

After attending the conference and returning to work, Mrs. Krall submitted a report of excused absence for February 14 and 15, 1979, listing illness as the reason for her absence. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Krall submitted a statement from her physician indicating that she was ill on the subject dates. This statement was based on misrepresented information received from Mrs. Krall's husband without the benefit of an actual physical examination. Upon learning of the misrepresentation, Mrs. Krall's physician contacted the school district to retract his report.

Subsequently, following a hearing, the board dismissed Mrs. Krall, determining that her conduct amounted to immorality under the Code. Mrs. Krall appealed her dismissal to the Secretary of Education, and a hearing was held on October 3, 1979. Two years later, on November 30, 1981, the Secretary of Education sustained Mrs. Krall's appeal, concluding that she did not act in an immoral manner. This appeal by the board ensued2.

Where, as here, the Secretary did not take additional testimony3, his scope of review is limited to a determination of (1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the board's action and (2) whether, as a matter of law, the public employee's conduct constituted a violation of the school code. Strinich v. Clairton School District, 494 Pa. 297, 431 A.2d 267 (1981); Langley v. Uniontown Area School Distr;ct, 28 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 69, 72, 367 A.2d 736, 737, 738 (1977)4. Thus, the issue here is whether Mrs. Krall's conduct constituted immorality as a matter of law. See Landi v. West Chester Area School District, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 586, 590, 353 A.2d 895, 897 (1976).5

Our Supreme Court, in Horosko v. Mt. Pleasant Township School District, 335 Pa. 369, 372, 6 A.2d 866, 868, cert. denied 308 ILS. 553, 60 S.Ct. 101, 84 L.Ed. 465 (1939), defined "immorality" in Section 1122 of the Code as:A course of conduct as offends the morals of the community and is bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate. Moreover, questions of morality are not limited to sexual conduct, but may include Iying. See Appeal of Flannery, 406 Pa. 515, 178 A.2d 751 (1962).

The determination of community standards is made by the school board, and thus a finding of the board that a professional employee was guilty of offending the moral standards of the community by his actions will not be disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence. Penn-Delco School District v. Urso, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 501, 382 A.2d 162 (1978). Such substantial evidence necessary to justify dismissal is determined by whether a reasonable 'person acting reasonably might have reached the same decision as the board. Id.

Although Mrs. Krall's unexcused absences might also have been considered in the context of "persistent willful misconduct,6" at least her misrepresentations are properly the subject of an immorality charge. Given our limited scope of review, we cannot say that a reasonable person might not have reached the same decision as the board.

Accordingly, we reverse.

ORDER

NOW, June 8, 1982, the order of the Secretary of Education, dated November 30, 1981, No. 9-79, is hereby vacated, and the decision of the Bethel Park School District, Allegheny County, terminating the contract of Bette T. Krall i8 hereby reinstated.