Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Janet
|
|
Last Name
|
Manning
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/22/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0028-RalED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Raleigh County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
ECATT/Special Ed. Aide
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that she should have been the successful applicant and/or that Respondent violated any law, rule or policy in giving priority to the successful applicant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8, § 18A-4-8b, § 18A-4-8b(b), § 18A-4-8b(d)(2)(C), § 18A-4-8g(j), § 18A-4-8(u)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Wagner v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-0809-RalED (July 20, 2017);Mayle v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0113-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016); Cosner v. Gilmer County Bd. of Educ. and Skinner, Docket No. 2015-1520-GilED (July 27, 2016); Paugh v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1574-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016); Adkins v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1620-FayED (Oct. 19, 2016); Workman v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0830-RalED (Nov. 22, 2016); Taylor v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-38-213 (Oct. 14, 2005); Cook v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2012-0106-LinED (Dec. 4, 2012)
|
|
Keywords
|
Aide/Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher (ECCAT), Seniority, Multiclassified
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant filed a complaint over her non-selection for a vacancy in the position of Aide/Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher (ECCAT) at Lester Elementary School. Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Aide when she filed this grievance. She bid on a posted aide/early childhood classroom assistant teacher position, which required Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher certification. Respondent selected another candidate although Grievant was the more senior applicant of the two.
It is ECCAT certification, seniority and employment status that tends to distinctly influence personnel decisions, for ECCAT positions. Grievant’s seniority is greater as to ECCAT certification and aid classification. The successful applicant held an ECCAT job at the time Respondent appointed her to the position in dispute. The parties disagree on the practical application of the selection process, relevant law and priorities in the circumstance of this grievance. Respondent established pertinent rationale for its action. Grievant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated any law, rule, or policy in giving priority to the successful applicant who held an aide/ECCAT job at the time of application for the vacant position. Grievance Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again