Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Michael
|
|
Last Name
|
Spatafore
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/26/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0980-HarED
|
|
ALJ
|
BLG
|
|
Respondent
|
Harrison County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the interview committee was required by any law, rule, regulation, or policy to interview all minimally qualified applicants.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a; W. Va. Code § 18-5A-5; 126 C.S.R. 126 § 7.2.a; in W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a(b)(1) through (9)
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Employers’ Mutual Ins. Co. v. Summit Point Raceway Associates, Inc., 228 W. Va. 360, 719 S.E.2d 830 (2011); Syl. Pt. 1, Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ins. Bd., 171 W. Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982); Dye v. Wirt County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0181-WirED (July 14, 2016); Dillon v. Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Christian v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-23-173 (Mar. 31, 1995); Bradley v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 96-BOD-030 (Jan. 28, 1997); Harper v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-29-064 (Sept. 27, 1993)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection Process; Vacancy; Interview; Qualifications; Arbitrary and Capricious; Physical Education Endorsement; Elementary Teacher; Narrowing Applicant Pool
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is a fourth grade teacher. He applied for a cover planning period teacher position at the same school where he is employed. The posting indicated that a specialty in physical education was preferred, as this teacher would be responsible for instructing students in physical education and health. Grievant did not have a specialty or endorsement in physical education. The applicant field was narrowed by the principal to reduce the number of applicants interviewed, by interviewing only those applicants who held a physical education endorsement. Respondent did not violate any law, rule, regulation, or policy by narrowing the applicant pool to reduce the number of applicants interviewed, nor did Grievant demonstrate that he was entitled to be interviewed, or that the actions of Respondent were arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again