Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kimberly
|
|
Last Name
|
Totten
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/30/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0777-MinED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Mingo County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Club Sponsorship
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that Respondent’s action(s) were unlawful.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-9
|
|
Related Cases
|
Dillon v. Wyoming County Bd. of Education, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000); Tickett v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-06-233 (Mar. 12, 1998); Huffstutler v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-06-150 (Oct. 31, 1997); Meadows v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-23-202 (Jan. 31, 2001)
|
|
Keywords
|
Volunteer Club Sponsorship; Due Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant, a classroom teacher, filed a grievance after she was removed from an unpaid volunteer position of faculty sponsor of the school’s BETA club by the school principal. BETA club is extra-curricular activity for students. Grievant averts she was improperly removed as a faculty sponsor of Mingo Central High School BETA club without notice and cause for insufficient allegations. Mingo County Board of Education, Respondent, maintains a school principal is empowered with the authority to make decisions and operate the daily operations of their respective schools. Accordingly, the instant principal is empowered to determine who will be allowed to volunteer/serve as a club sponsor.
For a quality teacher, the working environment and job satisfaction is more than the brick and mortar of the school house and the compensation received. By a preponderance of the evidence the instant Grievant has persuasively established she was chastened without opportunity to correct or alter debatable conduct. A principal’s authority is not omnipotent, discretion must be exercised reasonably. The action(s) of the instant Principal are controversial; however, it cannot be found that the Principal’s action with regard to Grievant is unlawfully abuse of discretion. Grievance Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again