For the first time since being ousted by Lehighton Area School District’s board of directors in December, former Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver was in Carbon County Court on Tuesday morning for a lawsuit in which he alleges the termination did not follow Pennsylvania Public School Code and breach of contract.

Cleaver, who had been with the district since 2012 and had two and a half years left on his contract, was terminated on a verbiage dispute after seven Lehighton directors voted for a resolution deeming his contract invalid.

According to Fox Rothschild, which represents the district, the state allows for “contract extensions,” but requires a “contract renewal” after a maximum of five years have passed. Cleaver was hired under a three-year contract with Lehighton on June 18, 2012, running until June 30, 2015. Since his contract was “extended” in 2014, 2017 and 2021, and not “renewed,” according to the firm, it became invalid.

In February, Bloomsburg Area School District hired Cleaver as superintendent on a five-year contract.

Tuesday’s court arguments were held on the district’s preliminary objections to Cleaver’s lawsuit and much of the discussion centered on the extension versus renewal debate.

“I’m not seeing where the statute prohibits a superintendent’s retention whether it is by extension, contract renewal or a new contract,” Carbon County Common Pleas Judge Roger Nanovic said during the hearing.

Nanovic did not rule on the objections Tuesday.

He will review the arguments and issue a ruling at a later date.

“The statute does state a superintendent’s term can’t go beyond five years, but I’m not seeing where, even after any of the extensions, the unserved portion of (Cleaver’s) term would extend beyond five years,” Nanovic added.

Alexis Shaw, the Fox Rothschild attorney representing the district, said her firm’s position is spelled out in the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Basic Education Circulars concerning a superintendent’s commission.

“If a contract goes beyond five years, it has to be a new contract, not an extension,” Shaw argued.

Nanovic, however, said PDE’s Basic Education Circular is not legally binding and instead, one interpretation of the statute.

“What I’m not understanding is, if you have a three-year contract and after two years, you extend the contract for another three years or you have a three-year contract and on the last day of it you sign a new contract for three more years, how are those logically different from each other?” Nanovic said.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education renewed Cleaver’s commission following every vote on Cleaver’s contract.

Shaw also argued Tuesday that Cleaver’s lawsuit was legally insufficient because it was filed as a “quo warranto” action.

“That is a form of action to determine the legality of the original appointment, which is not in dispute here,” Shaw said. “An action in quo warranto is not the appropriate action for the reinstatement of a superintendent who was removed from office.”

Catherine Rowe, who is representing Cleaver, said a quo warranto action is appropriate and is what happened in Leedom v. Thomas in 1997.

“There,” Rowe said, “the Supreme Court granted relief to a duly-elected district justice of the peace over his opponent, who had been illegally appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania.

In addition to the naming the district, Cleaver’s lawsuit names the seven directors who voted for his termination resolution including Joy Beers, Barbara Bowes, Walter Zlomsowitch, Jeremy Glaush, Richard Beltz, April Walker and Kerry Sittler.

Rowe said Tuesday the directors were named in their official capacity as board members, but Shaw said they should be granted “high public immunity.”

Cleaver is asking the court to “declare the resolution void and reverse any action taken pursuant to the resolution, declare him the incumbent superintendent of the district and grant any other relief deemed proper including attorney’s fees.”

He is also asking for judgment against all defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, inclusive of all economic losses such as back pay and attorney’s fees.