Penn-Trafford attorney urges dismissal of whistleblower suit
A former Penn-Trafford High School Spanish teacher's “whistleblower” lawsuit should be dismissed because it wasn't filed soon enough to beat a statute of limitations, an attorney for the district said in court records last month.
Christina Lane filed a motion on May 21 asking Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Gary Caruso to dismiss Judith Bielewicz's lawsuit against the district and three administrators because she didn't meet the deadline under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law of filing within 180 days of her disputed suspension as a teacher.
In April, Bielewicz sued the district, high school Principal Scott Inglese, former Superintendent Deborah Kolonay and former Assistant Superintendent Harry Smith.
District officials contend Bielewicz was suspended in March 2010 for failing to adhere to a performance-improvement plan.
Bielewicz, who confronted Inglese about the removal of a student from her classroom, said the student's transfer didn't follow school policy, according to her lawsuit.
Caruso hasn't scheduled a hearing in the case.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.