Board President Removed Without Cause or Hearing Able to Pursue Claims for Attorneys’ Fees and Punitive Damages

Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District, 2026 WL 1433082 (M.D. Pa. 2026) (A school board president removed from office by the school board without cause or a hearing was permitted to proceed with claims for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees)

BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2019, a majority of the Board of School Directors of the Jim Thorpe Area School District elected Paul Montemuro to be President of the Board. A week later, the Board replaced Montemuro and elected a new president. Montemuro claimed that the Board did not notify him of its plan to reorganize, nor did it provide him with a hearing before his ouster. He responded by suing the District and the Board members who voted against him for depriving him of his property interest in the position of Board President without due process and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The school district and school directors moved to dismiss Montemuro’s complaint, asserting, among other things, qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Montemuro had a clearly established property right in his position as Board President.

On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision relying upon § 7 of Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution (“[a]ll civil officers shall hold their offices on the condition that they behave themselves well while in office, and shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime)” and Section 514 of the Public School Code (“[t]he board of school directors in any school district, . . . shall after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right at any time to remove any of its officers, employe[e]s, or appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct”). The case was remanded to the trial court.

DISCUSSION

On remand, the trial court considered the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment upon Montemuro’s claims. Noting that the outcome was preordained by the Third Circuit’s prior ruling, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Montemuro and against the defendants upon Montemuro’s claim for violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court concluded that Montemuro was entitled to collect attorneys’ fees pursuant to his § 1983 claim. Further, the court ruled that the case could proceed to a jury trial for consideration of an award of punitive damages because a reasonable jury could determine the school directors “acted with reckless or callous indifference” and “trampled” Montemuro’s rights by not providing him a notice and hearing due to “personal or political animus.”

PRACTICAL ADVICE

As previously discussed in a prior edition of this newsletter, the Third Circuit’s decision in this case upended what had been the prevailing understanding that school board officers served at the pleasure of the school board and could be removed without cause or the necessity of notice or a hearing. The Montemuro decision establishes that the removal of appointed officers by a board of school directors requires cause, such as improper conduct, and requires providing those officers with notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. As demonstrated in the most recent court ruling in this litigation, a failure to abide such substantive and procedural requirements could expose a school district to liability for attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.

For questions regarding the removal of school board officers, procedural requirements, or potential liability arising from board actions, please contact Matthew Hoffman at (412) 594-3910 or mhoffman@tuckerlaw.com.