Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kelly
|
|
Last Name
|
Reed
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/15/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2507-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Berkeley County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent met its burden of proof and demonstrated that Grievant’s conduct was such that she may be disciplined, up to and including termination.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-7; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Santer v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-20-092 (June 30, 2003); Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd., 212 W. Va. 209, 569 S.E.2d 456 (2002); Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997); Overbee v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Welch Emergency Hosp., Docket No. 96-HHR-183 (Oct. 3, 1996); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-01-031 (Sept. 29, 1995); Pingley v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 95-CORR-252 (July 23, 1996); Bowman v. W. Va. Educational Broadcasting Auth., Docket No. 96-EBA-464 (July 3, 1997); Rodak v. W. Va. Dep't of Tax & Rev., Docket No. 96-T&R-536 (June 23, 1997); Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997); Pauley v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-22-495 (Jan. 29, 1999)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Failure to Return to Work; Exhausted Leave; Insubordination; Harassment; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 7/9/18, CA # 18-AA-225, (Webster); Final Order Affirming 10/1/2020
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was a second-grade teacher at Rosemont Elementary School in Berkeley County, West Virginia. The ultimate issue in this case is whether Respondent acted within its discretion in terminating Grievant’s employment after she refused to return to work following the exhaustion of her leave. Grievant’s failure to return to work is undisputed. The fact that Grievant does not suffer from an impairment that interferes with her ability to teach, thus requiring an accommodation, is also undisputed. For these reasons and others, as more fully set forth below, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again