| First Name | K. |
| Last Name | Subramani |
| Decision Date | 1/4/2017 |
| Docket Number | 2012-1353-WVU |
| ALJ | BLG |
| Respondent | West Virginia University |
| Employment Type | HE |
| Job Title | Associate Professor |
| Topics | Promotion |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant demonstrated that he should have been promoted. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d) |
| Related Cases | Cohen v. W. Va. Univ., Docket No. BOR1-86-247-2 (July 7, 1987); Carpenter v. Bd. of Trustees/W. Va. Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-220 (Mar. 18, 1994); Harrison v. W. Va. Bd. of Directors/Bluefield State College, Docket No. 93-BOD-400 (Apr. 11, 1995); Gardner v. Bd. of Trustees/Marshall Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-391 (Aug. 26, 1994); Nelson v. Bd. of Trustees/W. Va. Univ., Docket No. 99-BOT-514 (June 22, 2001); Baroni v. Bd. of Directors/Fairmont State College, Docket No. 92-BOD-271 (Feb. 11, 1993); Baker v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998); Bina v. Providence College, 39 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1406 (1995); Brozik v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 98-BOT-142 (Nov. 30, 1998); Shackleford v. W. Va. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 96-BOD-414 (Oct. 9, 1997); Schiavone v. Higher Educ. Policy Comm’n/Marshall Univ., Docket No. 02-HEPC-152 (Nov. 22, 2002); Subramani v. W. Va. Univ., Docket No. 2010-1473-WVU (July 22, 2011); aff’d, Cir. Ct. of Kanawha County, Civil Action No. 11-AA-114 (Mar. 7, 2013) |
| Keywords | Promotion; Student Evaluations; Discrimination; Arbitrary and Capricious; Teaching; Graduate Student Advising; Annual Evaluations |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | Grievant appealed to Kanawha County 2/8/2017, Civil Action #17-AA-11 (King) |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant’s application for promotion to Full Professor was denied based on a conclusion by the Provost that his teaching efforts did not meet the standard for promotion. Grievant’s research and service met the standard for promotion. Grievant argued that too much emphasis was placed on student evaluations and graduate student advising in the evaluation of his teaching efforts, in violation of the applicable guidelines. The Grievance Board has long-standing case law which holds poor student evaluations may support a finding that teaching and advising does not meet the effectiveness standard. Grievant was advised of the importance of mentoring graduate students in his annual evaluations. Grievant did not demonstrate that the decision not to promote him to Full Professor was arbitrary and capricious |