Jul 24, 2018 3 min read

Trinity West Elementary’s principal is suing the school district in federal court over what she alleges were unilateral changes the school board made to the plan that governs her and other administrators’ compensation.

A lawsuit filed Friday on behalf of Carol Lee, who lives in North Franklin Township, alleges Trinity Area “began a continuing violation of Lee’s federal and state constitutional and statutory rights relative to her status as a public employee and school official” in 2015 when the district adopted a new version of the district Act 93 plan, which dictates pay and benefits for most administrators.

“The focus is not monetary damages, although that is part of what we are claiming,” said her attorney, John Egers. “The focus is that the administrators’, particularly Mrs. Lee’s, rights regarding compensation plans are respected going forward.”

The civil complaint seeks a declaratory judgment finding district officials violated state law and denied Lee her constitutional rights to free speech, free association and due process.

She also requests other relief, including an injunction blocking the changes the board made to the plan the year after it was adopted.

State law requires school boards “upon the written request of a majority of the school administrators in the district … to meet and discuss in good faith with the school administrators on administrator compensation” before adopting a plan.

Lee became principal of Trinity West last year. She was first hired as assistant principal of the district high school in June 2013, while the 2010-2015 Act 93 plan was in effect.

The current plan will expire in 2020. Before the district adopted it in 2015, Lee and other administrators informed the district school board they wished to exercise their right to meet and discuss compensation for the next plan.

Representatives for the administrators met twice with counterparts from the school board before the district adopted the new plan in April that year. At the second of those two meetings, school board officials read the proposed compensation plan, “but did not permit the Act 93 representatives to comment or engage in any dialogue with the school board members who were present.”

The board allegedly went on to adopt the new plan the next day, before the employees it covers could prepare a response to the proposal.

“Subsequent to the approval of the 2015 plan, the school board continued its continuing violation in making a unilateral decision, without notice to Act 93 school administrators, including Lee, that it was taking the liberty to appoint administrators with or without compensation as it saw fit to certain positions within the school district,” Egers wrote.

The school board went on to amend the plan twice the following year – during public meetings in April and July – to add responsibilities and positions which were assigned to administrators other than Lee.

“The amendments to the 2015 plan … were never presented to the Act 93 school administrators for consideration prior to the school board’s decision to approve them,” Egers wrote.

District Solicitor Barbara Graham wasn’t immediately available for comment Monday morning.