| First Name | Paula |
| Last Name | Hinkle-Brown |
| Decision Date | 2/7/2018 |
| Docket Number | 2017-2223-MinED |
| ALJ | BLG |
| Respondent | Mingo County Board of Education |
| Employment Type | PROF |
| Job Title | Assistant Superintendentnt |
| Topics | Contract |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant is entitled to retain her position as Assistant Superintendent. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code §18-5-32; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-1; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-7 |
| Related Cases | Freeman v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-10-217 (Oct. 2, 2002), rev’d on other grounds, per curiam, 215 W. Va. 272, 599 S.E.2d 695 (2004); Williams v. Brown, 190 W. Va. 202, 437 S.E.2d 775 (1993); Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995); Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978); Dyer v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-494 (June 28, 1996); Crockett v. Andrews, 153 W. Va. 714, 172 S.E.2d 384 (1970); Goins & Swepston v. Raleigh County Board of Education, Docket No. 06-41-453 (March 23, 2007) |
| Keywords | Contract; At-Will Employee; Nepotism Policy; Substantial Public Policy; Term of Superintendent; Transfer; Non-Renewal |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 3/22/18 CA# 18-AA-194 (King); |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | As Assistant Superintendent, Grievant was an at-will employee, whose term, by statute, could not extend beyond that of the Superintendent with whom she served, or beyond four years. The Superintendent with whom she served retired in August 2016, and an Interim Superintendent was hired by Respondent. The Interim Superintendent was asked by the Board to keep Grievant on as Assistant Superintendent until June 30, 2017, and he agreed to do so. The Interim Superintendent was then chosen to be the Superintendent effective July 1, 2017, in February 2017. In March 2017, he made the decision to recommend to Respondent that Grievant’s contract as Assistant Superintendent not be renewed, and he told Grievant of his decision. Grievant was notified in writing of this recommendation in late April 2017, and Respondent accepted this recommendation in May 2017. Grievant’s contract states she is to receive notice of non-renewal of her contract pursuant to West Virginia Code §18A-2-7, which relates to transfers. Grievant was not transferred, nor did Respondent approve this notice provision in her contract. Grievant did not acquire the right to notice by April 1. Grievant further asserted that a “scheme” was in place to force her out so that the successful applicant for the Assistant Superintendent position, who is the husband of a Board member at the time, could be placed in the position, in violation of a substantial public policy, and that his selection for the position violated Respondent’s Nepotism Policy. Grievant did not prove that any such “scheme” existed, or that Respondent’s interpretation of its Nepotism Policy was without foundation. |