Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Marcella
|
|
Last Name
|
Charles
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/7/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2016-1813-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
BLG
|
|
Respondent
|
Mingo County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Vice Principal CTE Administrator
|
|
Topics
|
Contract
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant demonstrated that she is similarly situated to another employee, and whether Grievant was transferred in retaliation for filing a grievance.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d); W. Va. Code § 18A-4-5b
|
|
Related Cases
|
Frymier v. Higher Educ. Policy Comm., 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Sisson v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2009-0945-CONS (Dec. 18, 2009); Crockett & May v. Wayne County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-1698-CONS (Feb. 19, 2015); Cook v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010); Vance v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-19-272 (Oct. 31, 2002); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-01-154 (Apr. 8, 1994); Sloan v. Dept. of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 600 S.E.2d 554 (2004)
|
|
Keywords
|
Contract; Uniformity; Discrimination; Favoritism; Reprisal; Similarly Situated; Classification; Retaliation; Transfer
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is an Assistant Principal at a high school with responsibility for the CTE program at that high school. She is employed under a 240-day contract, just like all the other Assistant Principals in high schools in Mingo County. She asserted that she was a CTE administrator, and should be employed under a 261-day contract like the county CTE Administrator. Grievant is not employed in the same classification as the county CTE Administrator, and has a different level of responsibility than he does. She has not been discriminated against or been the victim of favoritism with regard to the contract term, nor did she demonstrate that the statutory uniformity provision has been violated. Grievant also did not demonstrate that she was placed on transfer in retaliation for filing a grievance. The three Assistant Principals at Grievant’s high school were assigned different areas of responsibility, and had a secondary title reflecting the assigned area, which was unique in Mingo County. Grievant was placed on transfer due to the reduction in force of one Assistant Principal position at her high school, as was the other remaining Assistant Principal at the school, so that the duties of the least senior Assistant Principal, as reflected in her secondary title, could be reassigned as the Principal deemed appropriate.
|
Back to Results
Search Again