Related Cases
|
Cohen v. W. Va. Univ., Docket No. BOR1-86-247-2 (July 7, 1987); Siu v. Johnson, 748 F. 2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984); Carpenter v. Bd. of Trustees/W.Va. Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-220 (Mar. 18, 1994); Baker v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998); Flint v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 251, 257, 531 S.E.2d 76, 82 (1999); Crockett and May v. Wayne County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-1698-CONS (Feb. 19, 2015); Cale, et. al. v. W. Va. Univ., Docket No. 2015-0576-CONS (Mar. 3, 2016); Wheeling Downs Racing Ass'n v. W. Va. Sportservice, Inc., 158 W. Va. 935, 216 S.E.2d 234 (1975); Lacey v. Cardwell, 216 Va. 212, 217 S.E.2d 835 (1975); Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 415-416 (4th Cir. 1979); Bailey v. Sewell Coal Co., 190 W. Va. 138, 140-41, 437 S.E.2d 448, 450-51 (1993); McFadden v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 94-HHR-428 (Feb. 17, 1995); Higginbotham v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bur. of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Harrison v. W.Va. Bd. of Directors/Bluefield State Coll., Docket No. 93-BOD-400 (Apr. 11, 1995); Gardner v. Bd. of Trustees/Marshall Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-391 (Aug. 26, 1994)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a tenure-track Associate Professor in its School of Medicine’s Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology. Grievant was denied tenure and asserts that the tenure denial was arbitrary and capricious for many individual reasons which all relate to either errors in the process or discrimination. Essentially, Grievant argues he was more deserving of tenure than two other faculty members who had recently been granted tenure, that he was evaluated differently than the two other faculty members, and that the University made numerous procedural and factual errors throughout the process. Grievant asserts this difference in treatment was caused by racial discrimination. Respondent asserts the compared faculty members are not similarly situated, that the tenure review process was thorough and without error, and that Grievant clearly failed to meet the requirements for tenure. Grievant did not prove he was similarly situated to the compared employees. Respondent violated its policy by failing to include Grievant’s tenure requirements in his contract. Under Respondent’s policy and past practice, job duties and responsibilities are not the same as tenure requirements. It was improper for Respondent to consider Grievant’s job duty and responsibility to secure external funding in the tenure decision. The portion of the grievance related to Grievant’s challenge of his employment end date is untimely. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|