act or mandatory duty; and the requirements that the plaintiff establish a clear legal right, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and an absence of another adequate and appropriate remedy. See id. at 666 (citing Shaler Area Sch. Dist. v. Salakas, 494 Pa. 630, 636, 432 A.2d 165, 168 (1981)). The majority, however, found that Appellant failed to meet the last of these requirements (lack of a alternative remedy), because he had the ability to appeal an ultimate, adverse removal decision pursuant to the Local Agency Law. See id. at 666, 432 A.2d 165 (citing 2 Pa.C.S. § 752). In so holding, the court distinguished the present situation from others in which it had concluded that mandamus was proper, see, e.g., Burns v. Uniontown Area Sch. Dist., 748 A.2d 1263, 1270 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (<HOLDING>), on the basis that the suspension in this case
holding that mandamus was proper where the school board was seeking removal for grounds not enumerated in section 1080 of the school code holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a county ordinance imposing an impact fee on new residential construction to be used for new school facilities did not constitute an unauthorized delegation of power from the county to the school board because the fundamental policy decisions were made by the county and the discretion of the school board was sufficiently limited holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal