Database Search Result Details

First Name Jill
Last Name Strahan
Decision Date 7/14/2017
Docket Number 2017-0148-MonED
ALJ BLG
Respondent Monongalia County Board of Education and Carol Ponceroff, Intervenor
Employment Type SERV
Job Title Secretary/Accountant
Topics Selection
Primary Issues Whether Respondent’s selection decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b; W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8(i)(62)
Related Cases Nelson v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-1190-BooED (Feb. 24, 2009) aff’d, Kan. Co. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 09-AA-49 (Jan. 14, 2011), aff’d, W.Va. Sup Ct. App. Docket No. 11-0278 (Feb. 14, 2012); Ward, et al., v. Nicholas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2013-2224-CONS (Apr. 1, 2014); Cyphers v. Marion County Bd. of Educ., Docket No 94-24-134 (Oct. 31, 1994); Cornell v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-40-111 (June 26, 2003); Wellman v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-27-327 (Nov. 30, 1995); Carr v. Tucker County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 06-47-376 (May 7, 2007); Taylor v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-38-213 (Oct. 14, 2005); Cornell v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-40-111 (June 26, 2003); Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W. Va. 780, 551 S.E.2d 702 (2001); Miller v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2011-0107-PreED (Aug. 9, 2011); Bowyer v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2012-1352-FayED, (August 22, 2013)
Keywords Selection; Experience; Qualifications; Multiclassification; Arbitrary and Capricious; Competency Testing; Seniority
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant argued she should have been selected for a posted Secretary III/Accountant II vacancy. No applicant held the multi-classification title in the posting. The successful applicant had the most seniority as a Secretary, and the most overall seniority, but she had not taken the competency test for Accountant, while Grievant had seniority both as a Secretary and a Secretary III/Accountant II. The statutory provisions do not address how Respondent is to evaluate seniority for a multiclassified position. Accordingly, it is evaluated under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Grievant did not demonstrate that it was arbitrary and capricious for Respondent to allow applicants to take the Accountant competency test, or to use overall seniority in making the selection.

Back to Results Search Again