The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last month affirmed a lower-court ruling that a former school board president was unlawfully removed from his position without due process in 2019.

The case involved Paul Montemuro, who was elected president but removed from office just a week later. Montemuro filed a lawsuit against the school district and board members, claiming that his property right in his employment had been violated.

Montemuro argued that he was not provided with proper notice or a hearing before being ousted from office.

The May 2024 court opinion, written by Circuit Judge Kent Jordan, noted that under Pennsylvania law, school board presidents can only be fired for cause.

Jordan cited Section 5-514 of the Public School Code, which safeguards school board officers, including presidents, from arbitrary dismissal. The section outlines specific reasons for removal, such as “incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct.”

“Montemuro has adequately alleged that the board violated his property right by removing him from office without a hearing,” Jordan wrote.

Jordan also noted that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause” protects individuals from being deprived of their property interests without fair legal procedures.

“Established precedent dictates that employees with a property interest in their employment cannot be fired without notice and a hearing,” Jordan wrote.

This principle, he added, is firmly rooted in Supreme Court rulings like Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, which emphasizes that “some kind of a hearing” prior to the dismissal of an employee with a protected property interest is fundamental.

“In Loudermill, the court held that public employees with a property interest in their jobs are entitled to certain procedural protections before being terminated,” the decision states. “This includes notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to respond.”

The appeals court also addressed the argument that the school board members might be entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their duties unless they violated clearly established rights.

Jordan wrote that qualified immunity did not apply in this situation.

“Three propositions are controlling here: first, employees who can only be removed for cause have a property interest in their employment; second, school board presidents in Pennsylvania can only be dismissed for cause; and third, employees with a property interest in their employment cannot be fired without notice and a hearing,” the decision states. “We believe that, under existing precedent, all three were indeed clearly established.”