A rumor alleging the principal of Moraine Elementary School was intoxicated on the job snowballed into other allegations that resulted in her termination in January before the state ordered her reinstatement last week, according to an order from the Secretary of Education.

Kristie Shulsky is “ready, willing, and able” to return to work, but the district hasn’t responded to her demand to return to work or indicated if it will appeal the order, her attorney, Steven Winslow said.

“She was thrilled because she knew all along she wasn’t intoxicated at work,” Winslow said Monday, July 21, to the Butler Eagle. “That was the key allegation.”

Shulsky appealed her termination, and acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe decided in her favor on Thursday. Slippery Rock Area School District was notified by mail on Friday that Shulsky, who worked 17 years for the district, was to be reinstated.

On Monday, Rowe released her opinion in the matter, which included a finding of facts from hearing transcripts and exhibits detailing the allegations that led to Shulsky’s dismissal.

The following details were released in Rowe’s order:

On April 23, 2024, Shulsky had two glasses of wine with dinner at home while celebrating her wedding anniversary with her husband. She went to bed later than normal because she had difficulty getting her son to go to sleep and took her prescription medication at 1 a.m. April 24, the opinion said.

After taking her morning medication at the usual time of 7 a.m. the morning after, she drove to work without difficulty or feeling differently than she normally does. She arrived at 7:52 a.m., walked into the building without any issue and had a meeting regarding the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, according to the opinion.

At some point that morning, Tammy Neupauer, a paraprofessional within the school district, called her husband, Nick Neupauer, then president of Butler County Community College, and relayed rumors that Shulsky was intoxicated at work. Nick Neupauer contacted district solicitor Michael Hnath to report the rumor, according to the opinion.

Hnath informed superintendent Alfonso Angelucci that he received a report alleging that Shulsky might be intoxicated at work. Angelucci and his administrative assistant, arrived at Moraine Elementary at 11:09 a.m. to investigate the report. Angelucci spoke with two employees who both reported noticing nothing out of the ordinary regarding Shulsky’s behavior that morning. He asked another employee who said Shulsky was “very happy this morning” and did not smell like alcohol, according to the opinion.

Angelucci explained to Shulsky that he received a report that she might be intoxicated at work that morning. Shulsky denied the allegation and used profanity in her response. Angelucci responded that he understood she was upset, but he was going to have to send her home for the day while he investigated, according to the opinion.

Shulsky offered to take a field sobriety test and go to a hospital immediately for a drug and alcohol test to prove she was not intoxicated, but Angelucci told her that would not be necessary, according to the opinion. Based on Angelucci’s observations of Shulsky, he said he did not believe she was intoxicated and allowed her to drive herself home, which he stated he would never do if he had reason to believe she was intoxicated, it continued.

Angelucci allowed Shulsky to return to work the next day, which he said he would never do if he had any reason to believe she was intoxicated at work, the opinion said. Shulsky continued to work as scheduled until April 30, according to the opinion.

Angelucci met that day with Tammy Neupauer, who resigned the day before, the opinion said. During the meeting, Angelucci received additional information about the alleged events of April 24 that prompted him to place Shulsky on paid administrative leave, which he confirmed by email on May 1.

In that email, Angelucci told Shulsky not to contact any staff members at the school while she was on leave, and any emails sent to her district email address would be forwarded to him and assistant superintendent Susan Miller. In a May 2 email to Angelucci, Shulsky asked for clarification of her expectations while on administrative leave. Angelucci told her she was not expected to perform any duties while on leave.

On May 9, Shulsky and her husband met with Angelucci, Miller and Hnath. Shulsky disclosed that she took her prescription medications close together in time, and potential side effects might be the reason people may have perceived her as acting differently, according to the opinion.

Shulsky has been diagnosed with two medical conditions which affect sleeping and takes two medications for those conditions. Shulsky also provided information about side effects and interactions, such as confusion and impairment in thinking or judgment, that can occur if her medications are taken too closely together in time. Information for the medication says Shulsky should “avoid or limit” alcohol, but does not say she should completely abstain from alcohol, according to the opinion.

During the May 9 meeting, the district discussed a small silver countertop bell located in the school office. An employee reported that Shulsky directed her to ring the bell whenever Angelucci or Miller entered the building. Shulsky denied that the bell was used for that purpose, the opinion said.

While Shulsky was on leave on June 12, Angelucci emailed her and asked her to submit her self-evaluation that was due June 7, according to the opinion.

On June 13, a teacher applicant emailed Shulsky about an open teaching position, and Shulsky responded June 15, the opinion said.

On June 15, Shulsky responded to Angelucci’s request for her evaluation by saying he told her not to do anything while she was on leave, but she would send it June 19, the opinion said.

At a June 21 hearing, the district brought up the countertop bell again. Shulsky again denied the district’s alleged purpose of the bell and said it was used for anyone who entered the office, the opinion continued.

On June 26, one of the job applicants emailed Shulsky again about the open position and Shulsky responded the same day. On June 27, another teaching applicant emailed Shulsky about the position and Shulsky responded the same day, the opinion said.

The district’s investigation into what transpired on April 24 continued until a second hearing on July 16. During the investigation, current staff members, as well as previous staff members, raised several allegations apart from the events of April 24. The allegations included Shulsky throwing a plastic container of sugar in the presence of an employee, using profanity in the workplace, napping in a conference room, poor treatment of staff, reprimanding teachers in a humiliating fashion, prohibiting the use of an electronic stapler and intentionally withholding clothing, footwear and other items donated to help less fortunate students and families, according to the opinion.

On July 16, Angelucci converted Shulsky’s paid administrative leave to an unpaid suspension effective at the close of business on July 19. On July 29, the school board unanimously voted to approve the superintendent’s recommendation to terminate Shulsky’s employment, according to the opinion.

A notice of hearing and statement of charges was sent to Shulsky on July 30. Based on the investigation between April 24 and July 16, the district charged Shulsky with immorality for the allegations involving intoxication as well as lying about the counter bell; intemperance for the allegations involving throwing a plastic container of sugar, using profanity in the workplace, napping in a conference room, poor treatment of staff, reprimanding teachers in a humiliating fashion and prohibiting the use of an electronic stapler; cruelty for intentionally withholding clothing, footwear and other items donated to help less fortunate students and families; and insubordination for responding to the two applicants who emailed her about the open teaching position.

The board held hearings on the charges on Sept. 12 and 24, Oct. 10, 22 and 30, and Nov. 18 before voting 9-0 at a Jan. 13 meeting to approve Shulsky’s termination.

In her opinion explaining the decision to reinstate Shulsky, Rowe said the district failed to prove any of the allegations against her and noted many of the allegations cited for her termination did not meet the standard for termination.

The Neupauers’ attorney Jeff Kubay declined to comment on the opinion.