Database Search Result Details

First Name Debra
Last Name Baker
Decision Date 1/26/2018
Docket Number 2017-2458-WVUP
ALJ CHL
Respondent West Virginia University at Parkersburg
Employment Type HE
Job Title Professor
Topics Dismissed
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its motion to dismiss should be granted.
Outcome Dismissed; Remedy Wholly Unavailable
Statutes W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1 et seq.; W. Va. Code St. R. § 159-1-6.2 (2008); W. Va. Code St. R. § 159-1-6.11 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)
Related Cases Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); McDaniel v. W. Va. Div. of Labor, 214 W. Va. 719, 591 S.E.2d 277 (2003); Mountaineer Disposal Serv., Inc. v. Dyer, 156 W. Va. 766, 197 S.E.2d 111 (1973); Vest v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Nicholas, 193 W. Va. 222, 225, 227 n. 11 (1995); Dooley, et al., v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002); Lyons v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-54-601 (Feb. 28, 1990); Dunleavy v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 20-87-102-1 (June 30, 1987); Stepp v. Dep't. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 06-DOH-215 (Oct. 27, 2006); Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993); Clark v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-1611-RalED (Nov. 17, 2016), aff’d Kan. Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 16-AA-123 (Apr. 7, 2017)
Keywords Dismiss; Wholly Unavailable; Advisory Opinion; Intellectual Property; Copyright; Tort-Like Damages; Injury-in-Fact; Speculative
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as a professor. Grievant alleges claims involving intellectual property rights and copyright infringement, and seeks various remedies, including tort-like damages. Respondent moved to dismiss this grievance for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, and that Grievant seeks remedies that are wholly unavailable through the grievance process. Respondent has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Therefore, this grievance is DISMISSED.

Back to Results Search Again