Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
WILLIAM
|
|
Last Name
|
WEBB
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/5/1989
|
|
Docket Number
|
26-88-206
|
|
ALJ
|
DC
|
|
Respondent
|
MASON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
TEACHER
|
|
Topics
|
SUSPENSION
|
|
Primary Issues
|
INSUBORDINATION, DRESS CODE
|
|
Outcome
|
DENIED
|
|
Statutes
|
18A-2-2, 18A-2-8, 18-29-2(a)
|
|
Related Cases
|
719 P.2D 351, 352 (COLO. APP. 1985)
|
|
Keywords
|
INSUBORDINATION; DRESS CODE
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Civil Action #89-AA-29, Reversed ALJ 6/7/89 on basis that dress policy had never been adopted by CBOE
|
|
Supreme Court
|
S.Ct. refused the board of education's petition for appeal in 1989.
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant, a tenured teacher, was suspended for eleven days for insubordination upon his failure to comply with a newly implemented dress code. He had previously been suspended for four days with pay for the same reason, and did not grieve this earlier action. The dress code was implemented by the Superintendent at the beginning of the 1988-89 school year without input from personnel or action by the Board of Education and after the execution of annual 'status forms' which outline certain employment details for he year. Grievant admitted the dress code was substantially reasonable, and specifically limited his grievance to these issues: 1) Did the Superintendent have authority to promulgate the dress code?; 2) Was the issuance of the dress code, after the issuance of 1988-89 status forms, a breech of contract? DECISION: Grievant's earlier (four-day) suspension had been upheld by Respondent and this amounted to an adoption of the dress code as Board of Education policy, prior to the eleven-day suspension herein grieved. Therefore, the Superintendent's authority is irrelevant. Grievant's continuing contract provides he must abide by all of the Respondent's policies/directives; this term has never been modified per W.Va. Code, 18A-2-2. The status form has no pertinence. Grievant was insubordinate. DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again