School Nurse Fired After Refusing Assignment; Investigation Questions Staffing and Scope

Pennsylvania school district says an LPN was fired for excessive absenteeism. Hearing transcripts, interviews, state guidance, and public records reviewed by Nurse on the Record reveal a more complex story.

When Millville Area School District announced a two-hour delay on April 17 because it lacked adequate nursing coverage, parents received a brief explanation: there wasn’t a nurse available to safely open school.

Within weeks, the licensed practical nurse at the center of that staffing shortage was fired.

District officials say the decision was straightforward. Moriah Benjamin, a probationary licensed practical nurse (LPN), accumulated 11 absences during her first three months of employment, making her an unreliable employee whose final absence disrupted school operations.

Benjamin tells a different story.

She does not dispute missing work. Several absences, she said, occurred while caring for her young son, who was diagnosed with strep throat. As a single mother, she often found herself choosing between caring for her child and reporting to work. On a separate occasion, Benjamin herself was diagnosed with influenza. She told Nurse on the Record that she believes it is possible she contracted the virus while caring for students with similar symptoms, noting that she had sent multiple children home with influenza-like illness during that period. Nurse on the Record reviewed physician documentation confirming both her son’s strep throat diagnosis and Benjamin’s influenza diagnosis but is not publishing those records to protect their medical privacy. Benjamin argues, however, that the absence which ultimately led to her termination was fundamentally different. She says she refused to report to work on April 17 because she believed the assignment would require her to practice outside the legal scope of her nursing license.

“I was not willing to work outside of my scope of practice,” Benjamin told the Millville Area School Board during her public termination hearing. “It was my license.”

Want to see more Nurse.org articles in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

An investigation by Jana Price for Nurse on the Record—including a review of hundreds of pages of hearing transcripts, district records, employment documents, text messages, Pennsylvania Department of Education guidance, and interviews with current and former Pennsylvania school nurses—found the case raises questions extending well beyond one employee’s attendance record.

Among them:

• Whether Benjamin was adequately informed that Certified School Nurse (CSN) supervision would be available before she was expected to work.
• Whether Millville’s staffing practices aligned with Pennsylvania’s guidance governing supplemental nurses.
• How school districts should balance ongoing nursing shortages with nurses’ legal responsibilities under state law.

While the School Board ultimately voted to terminate Benjamin’s employment, the hearing left many of those broader questions unresolved.

The District’s Case

Benjamin began working for Millville Area School District on Feb. 9, 2026, as an assistant school nurse. Because she was newly hired, she served as a probationary employee under the district’s collective bargaining agreement, which provides that new employees remain on probation for 90 calendar days or 45 workdays, whichever is greater, and may be discharged during that period without recourse.

During her probationary employment, Benjamin missed 11 of 55 scheduled workdays.

District Business Manager Whitney Holloway testified those absences represented approximately 20% of Benjamin’s scheduled workdays. Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus described Benjamin as “unreliable due to her frequent absences” and said the district depended on consistent nursing coverage to protect students and staff.

District solicitor David Sterngold urged the School Board to focus on two issues outlined in the Statement of Charges: persistent absenteeism and neglect of duty.

“You will now hear evidence of Ms. Benjamin’s conduct demonstrating her persistent absences and neglect of duty,” Sterngold said in his opening statement. “I would urge you to simply focus on the question of whether Ms. Benjamin fulfilled her duties as a probationary employee of the district or not.”

Throughout the hearing, administrators repeatedly emphasized Benjamin’s attendance record, noting she had no contractual entitlement to paid sick leave during her probationary period and arguing that her absences created operational challenges for the district.

The district also pointed to the events of April 17, when Benjamin notified administrators the night before that she would not report to work. Unable to secure substitute nursing coverage before students arrived, Millville delayed the start of school by two hours.

For district officials, that delay illustrated the consequences of Benjamin’s absence.

For Benjamin, it illustrated something else entirely.

>>Listen to The Latest Nurse News Podcast

 

Benjamin Doesn’t Dispute the Absences—She Disputes Their Meaning

Representing herself during the hearing, Benjamin acknowledged missing work.

“My son was sick,” she told the School Board. “There was nothing that I could do about that. … I either neglect my job or I neglect my child.”

Benjamin acknowledged that accepting the position required a financial sacrifice. According to district employment records, the job paid approximately $28,000 annually before taxes and included no employee benefits. Despite the low salary, Benjamin testified she accepted the position because she loved school nursing and hoped to build a career caring for students.

“The money was horrible, if I’m being honest,” she told the School Board. “No benefits is not realistic for 2026. … I took pride in what I did.”

She also questioned why the district relied so heavily on the total number of absences after approving them as unpaid leave.

“My biggest thing is that all of my absences were retroactively approved by the board,” Benjamin told board members. “Yes, I missed time. But all of you board members approved the time.”

District officials did not dispute that the absences were approved. Holloway testified, however, that those approvals were an administrative payroll function rather than a determination that the absences were appropriate. Because probationary employees do not receive paid leave, unpaid absences are presented to the board after a certain threshold is reached for payroll purposes, she said.

Benjamin also testified that on several occasions she personally arranged for qualified substitute nurses to cover her shifts.

When she asked whether those days still counted as absences against her employment record, Holloway answered simply:

“Yes.”

The exchange highlighted one of the central disagreements in the case. The district evaluated Benjamin’s reliability based on the number of days she did not report to work. Benjamin argued that approach ignored the circumstances surrounding those absences, including instances in which patient care remained covered.

Still, attendance alone does not fully explain why Benjamin says she lost her job.

According to Benjamin, everything changed on April 17.

The question at the heart of the case was no longer whether she had missed work.

It was whether she could legally report to work under the conditions she believed existed that day.

The Assignment Benjamin Refused

By April 16, the dispute between Benjamin and the district had become about more than attendance.

The district’s Certified School Nurse (CSN), Kara Ferro, had a previously approved personal day scheduled for the following day, that she notified the district of weeks in advance. Despite multiple attempts, administrators had been unable to secure substitute nursing coverage for Friday, April 17.

Benjamin testified she became increasingly concerned she would be expected to work without the supervision she believed Pennsylvania law required for a licensed practical nurse.

For Benjamin, the decision ultimately came down to protecting her professional license. “I’d rather lose my job than my license,” she testified during the hearing, explaining that she could not accept an assignment she believed exceeded the legal scope of her practice.

“I can’t work by myself because in Pennsylvania I can’t work independently,” Benjamin testified during the hearing. “I need to be supervised.”

Throughout the afternoon and evening of April 16, Benjamin communicated with Director of Student Services Danielle Fritz, explaining she was uncomfortable reporting to work under those circumstances.

At 10:23 p.m., Benjamin texted Fritz:

“I’m sorry it’s so late. I can’t do both buildings alone. It’s just not safe and I cannot risk my license.”

Fritz responded that she understood Benjamin’s concerns but did not believe her nursing license would be at risk.

“I understand you are concerned, but you would not be at risk of losing your license,” Fritz wrote, according to text messages read into the hearing record. “Other districts operate like this all the time. You’re not the primary nurse.”

The following morning, before school was scheduled to begin, Benjamin sent another message reiterating her concerns.

“I do want to help and perform my job, but safely. I try to be as flexible, but I’m just not comfortable covering both buildings alone because I feel it puts me outside of my scope as an LPN. Even though I’m considered support staff in the district, I carry a professional nursing license, and I have a scope I need to follow. I am so sorry. I just can’t take the chance of something happening and risking my license.”

Benjamin entered her absence into the district’s Frontline reporting system the night before her scheduled shift, several hours before the one-hour call-off policy.

Unable to secure substitute coverage before students arrived, the district delayed the start of school by two hours.

For district officials, the delayed opening demonstrated the operational impact of Benjamin’s decision not to report.

For Benjamin, it demonstrated something different.

She believed she had been asked to accept an assignment that exceeded the limits of her nursing license.

What Pennsylvania Law Says

The legal question at the center of Benjamin’s decision received surprisingly little analysis during the nearly two-hour hearing.

Pennsylvania law requires school health services to be provided by Certified School Nurses. In an August 30, 2022 memorandum distributed to every Local Education Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Education clarified that registered nurses and licensed practical nurses may assist a Certified School Nurse but serve in a supplemental role.

The memorandum states:

“A supplemental RN or LPN may not be assigned a student caseload.”

It further explains that supplemental nurses are intended to assist—not replace—the Certified School Nurse.

Benjamin testified she interpreted that guidance to mean she could not independently assume responsibility for student health services without appropriate supervision.

District officials did not dispute that LPNs require supervision. Instead, they argued the district had arranged sufficient support for Benjamin to safely report to work.

Whether that support was clearly communicated became one of the hearing’s most closely examined issues.

Was Benjamin Told a Certified School Nurse Was Available?

During direct examination, Fritz testified that after administrators were unable to secure substitute coverage, Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus contacted neighboring Benton Area School District to arrange additional support.

According to Fritz, Benton was also operating that day without its Certified School Nurse physically present because the nurse was attending a field trip. Benton assigned its LPN to cover the district’s schools, and Fritz testified that if Benjamin needed assistance, she could contact Benton LPN Brooke, who in turn could reach Benton’s Certified School Nurse.

Fritz testified she exchanged phone numbers between Benjamin and the Benton LPN before April 17.

That testimony appeared to establish that supervisory support existed.

Benjamin, however, focused on a different question.

Representing herself, she began asking Fritz precisely what had been communicated before she decided not to report to work.

“Did you relay that to myself?” Benjamin asked after Fritz testified the Benton CSN could be contacted.

“Yes,” Fritz answered.

As Benjamin continued questioning, the exchange became more specific.

She established that Fritz had texted her asking to call, later sent Brooke’s phone number, and acknowledged the text messages in which Benjamin repeatedly stated she believed working alone would place her outside her legal scope of practice.

Benjamin then asked a narrower question.

“Did you send me that message telling me a CSN was available?”

“I don’t recall,” Fritz replied.

Moments later, Benjamin asked again.

“Did you tell me on the phone call that there was a CSN in place?”

“No,” Fritz answered.

“Not that I recall.”

Benjamin responded that she had never been made aware a Certified School Nurse would be available to supervise her.

“It was safe to say that I had no clue there was a CSN available at all,” she testified.

Fritz disagreed with that characterization.

After Sterngold objected and Hearing Officer Gary Weber overruled the objection, Weber asked Fritz to clarify whether she had told Benjamin that the Benton LPN had access to the Certified School Nurse. Fritz answered, “Yes,” despite having moments earlier testified that she did not recall telling Benjamin a Certified School Nurse would be available.

The distinction became one of the hearing’s central factual disputes.

Benjamin maintains she was provided only another LPN’s phone number and never informed that a Certified School Nurse would be available to supervise her practice. The district maintains arrangements had been made to provide support through Benton Area School District and that Benjamin chose not to report despite those accommodations.

Neither the School Board nor the hearing officer ultimately resolved that factual dispute.

Instead, the hearing largely returned to the issue with which it began: attendance.

How the Case Changed

As the hearing progressed, another question emerged—one that had nothing to do with school nursing.

It centered on what Benjamin was actually being asked to defend.

Before the hearing, the district issued two separate documents outlining the reasons for Benjamin’s proposed termination.

The first, dated May 4, 2026, was a Notice of Recommendation for Termination and Loudermill Hearing signed by Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus. The notice presented a broad narrative of Benjamin’s employment, describing her attendance history, the events surrounding April 17, the district’s delayed opening, and what administrators characterized as the disruption caused by her absence.

Five days later, the district issued a second document.

The May 9 Statement of Charges identified the allegations Benjamin would defend before the School Board. Rather than repeating the broader narrative contained in the Loudermill notice, the formal charges were narrowed to two allegations:

• Persistent absenteeism
• Neglect of duty

At first glance, the distinction appeared procedural.

During the hearing, however, it became more significant.

An Unusual Exchange

Almost immediately after proceedings began, Hearing Officer Gary Weber attempted to admit the district’s exhibits into evidence.

Referring to Exhibit A-5, Weber initially stated that it contained both the Loudermill notice and the Statement of Charges.

District solicitor David Sterngold corrected him.

“A-5 is just the Loudermill,” Sterngold said. “The notice of charges is not marked as an exhibit.”

Weber responded:

“No, that’s okay then. We won’t mark it as an exhibit.”

Benjamin confirmed she had received both documents before the hearing.

The exchange lasted only moments.

Yet it established an important distinction.

The Loudermill notice became part of the hearing record.

The document formally identifying the charges Benjamin was expected to defend did not.

From Attendance to Scope of Practice

In his opening statement, Sterngold told the School Board the district intended to prove Benjamin should be terminated for persistent absenteeism and neglect of duty, tracking the language contained in the May 9 Statement of Charges.

As testimony unfolded, however, the hearing became about much more than attendance.

District witnesses spent considerable time describing:

• Benjamin’s refusal to report to work on April 17.
• The district’s efforts to obtain substitute nursing coverage.
• The two-hour delay in opening school.
• The inconvenience experienced by parents and staff.
• Staffing shortages affecting schools across Pennsylvania.
• Whether Benjamin should have accepted the assignment despite her concerns.

Benjamin, meanwhile, repeatedly attempted to steer the discussion back to what she viewed as the central issue—whether she was being asked to perform duties outside the legal scope of her nursing license.

At one point she questioned Director of Student Services Danielle Fritz directly.

“Are you aware of the codes for an LPN?”

“Yes,” Fritz replied.

“You need to be supervised by an RN.”

“Or a CSN,” Fritz answered.

“Or a doctor,” Benjamin added.

The exchange lasted only seconds.

The hearing never moved into a detailed discussion of Pennsylvania’s Practical Nurse Law, the Public School Code, or the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s 2022 guidance governing Certified School Nurse services.

Instead, the discussion repeatedly returned to attendance and the operational consequences of April 17.

Operational Necessity—or Legal Obligation?

Throughout the hearing, district officials argued that Millville’s staffing model reflected the realities facing school districts across Pennsylvania.

Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus testified that administrators had spent months attempting to address ongoing nursing shortages, using substitute agencies, neighboring school districts, and regional partnerships to maintain student health services whenever possible.

Rasmus also described contacting Donna Wiles, a regional school health consultant with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, to ask what districts should do when they could not secure nursing coverage.

According to Rasmus, he asked a simple question:

“Should we close school?”

Rasmus testified that Wiles responded:

“Oh gosh, no. Don’t do that. Just do the best you can.”

Rasmus testified that the conversation reinforced his understanding that districts should make every reasonable effort to remain open despite staffing shortages.

Benjamin never disputed that Pennsylvania schools face significant shortages of qualified school nurses.

Her argument was different.

She questioned whether advice intended to help districts continue operating altered the legal responsibilities imposed on individual licensed nurses.

The hearing record contains Rasmus’ testimony describing his conversation with Wiles.

It does not contain written guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of Education stating that nursing shortages modify the statutory limitations governing licensed practical nurses or the Department’s 2022 memorandum stating that supplemental LPNs “may not be assigned a student caseload.”

That distinction remained unresolved.

The district maintained Benjamin’s termination resulted from excessive absenteeism and neglect of duty.

Benjamin maintained that the final absence—the one that delayed school and ultimately ended her employment—was driven by her obligation to practice within the limits of her nursing license.

The School Board ultimately voted to uphold Superintendent Rasmus’ recommendation and terminate Benjamin’s employment.

It did not issue findings explaining how it weighed Benjamin’s scope-of-practice concerns against the district’s operational needs or whether its decision rested solely on the formal charges or the broader evidence presented throughout the hearing.

Beyond One Nurse

Benjamin’s concerns about practicing without adequate Certified School Nurse supervision were not unique.

To determine whether Millville’s staffing practices reflected broader school nursing practice across Pennsylvania, Nurse on the Record interviewed current and former Pennsylvania school nurses, including another former Millville nurse and a Certified School Nurse who previously practiced in another district.

Their experiences painted markedly different pictures.

Kia Pfleegor worked as a licensed practical nurse in Millville Area School District from May 2024 until April 2025.

Before joining Millville, Pfleegor had already worked as a school nurse in another Pennsylvania district.

She said the difference was immediate.

“I can fully attest that the things that went on at Millville are not normal practice.”

At her previous district, Pfleegor said she routinely worked as the only nurse physically present in her school building, but a Certified School Nurse was always available for consultation.

“There were times when I ran into emergencies that I called them. My secretary would call them just to get their advice. I always had a CSN available to me.”

Millville, she said, was different.

“There were times when I was at Millville, I was the only nurse in the district,” Pfleegor said. “The CSN wasn’t available by phone, and I honestly did not feel comfortable with that.”

One day, Pfleegor recalled responding to two student medical emergencies occurring simultaneously in different school buildings.

“I had to decide which child do I go up to.”

The experience left her questioning whether she could safely fulfill her responsibilities without immediate Certified School Nurse support.

“I feared for my license that day.”

Following that incident, Pfleegor said she began documenting every occasion she found herself serving as the only nurse because she worried something eventually would happen.

“I worked way too hard for my nursing license,” she said. “I’m not going to let somebody who doesn’t care about me take that away from me.”

Although Pfleegor later accepted another nursing position offering higher pay and health insurance, she said concerns about practicing safely also influenced her decision to leave Millville.

“What is going on is still not acceptable.”

A Different Experience

Nurse on the Record also interviewed Danj VanPelt, a Certified School Nurse who previously worked in another Pennsylvania district as a registered nurse prior to becoming a CSN.

After reviewing the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s August 2022 memorandum regarding supplemental nurses, VanPelt said its guidance matched her experience.

“My understanding is that an LPN works under the supervision of the CSN.”

Although VanPelt often worked alone in her own school building as an RN, she said she never felt unsupported.

“There was never a time I felt alone.”

She described a district where nurses routinely consulted one another throughout the day and where administrators deferred to Certified School Nurses on questions involving nursing practice and scope of practice.

“I could call her 500 times a day and it was never an inconvenience.”

Neither VanPelt nor Pfleegor offered legal opinions regarding Millville’s staffing practices.

Instead, their interviews provided context.

Both acknowledged Pennsylvania continues to face significant nursing shortages.

Where they differed was in how those shortages were managed.

Pfleegor described occasions when she believed she lacked adequate Certified School Nurse support and feared for her nursing license.

VanPelt described a district where Certified School Nurses remained actively involved in supervising nursing staff despite staffing challenges.

Taken together, their experiences underscore one of the central questions raised throughout Benjamin’s hearing:

How should Pennsylvania school districts balance ongoing staffing shortages with the legal supervision requirements governing licensed practical nurses?

The Questions That Remain

Benjamin’s employment with Millville Area School District ended when the School Board voted to uphold Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus’ recommendation to terminate her.

The broader questions raised during the hearing, however, remain unresolved.

The hearing did not determine whether Millville’s staffing model complied with Pennsylvania law, nor did it resolve the conflicting testimony over whether Benjamin was informed that Certified School Nurse supervision would be available before she was expected to report to work. The Board also did not explain how it weighed Benjamin’s scope-of-practice concerns against the district’s operational needs or whether those concerns influenced its decision.

What the investigation did reveal is that Benjamin’s experience is not viewed uniformly among Pennsylvania school nurses. While some nurses interviewed by Nurse on the Record described staffing models similar to those used in Millville, others said they always had immediate access to Certified School Nurse supervision and considered that support essential to practicing safely within their scope.

As Pennsylvania school districts continue to face persistent nursing shortages, Benjamin’s case illustrates the difficult balance between maintaining school operations and ensuring nurses have the supervision and support they believe are necessary to meet their professional responsibilities.

For former Millville LPN Kia Pfleegor, that broader conversation is why she chose to speak publicly.

“I just want to make sure this never happens again to any nurse anywhere,” she said. “This is not normal practice.”

Requests for Comment and Public Records

As part of this investigation, Nurse on the Record sought comment from the Millville Area School District, Superintendent Dr. Joseph Rasmus, members of the Millville Area School Board, the district’s legal counsel, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and the Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing regarding the issues raised in this article.

Dr. Rasmus responded to multiple requests for comment. In his responses, he stated that because the matter involved a personnel issue, “the district shall not comment on this matter,” and directed Nurse on the Record to pursue records through Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know process. He also stated that he was “disinclined to share any specific details regarding this matter outside of the formal right to know process and respective timelines.”

As of publication, Nurse on the Record did not receive substantive responses from the Millville Area School Board, the district’s legal counsel, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, or the Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing addressing the questions presented for this investigation.

In addition to requesting comments, Nurse on the Record submitted multiple requests to the Millville Area School District under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law seeking records related to nurse staffing, employment practices, and other matters relevant to this investigation. Those requests were denied by the district. Nurse on the Record is appealing those denials through the procedures established under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law.

Should additional records become available or any of the agencies or individuals contacted provide further comment, this story will be updated accordingly.