Database Search Result Details

First Name David
Last Name Fields
Decision Date 9/21/2018
Docket Number 2017-2152-WayED
ALJ CHL
Respondent Wayne County Board of Education
Employment Type PROF
Job Title Teacher
Topics Reduction in Force
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved that Respondent’s decision to terminate his contract through reduction in force and to eliminate his program was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise improper.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code §§ 18A-2-7 and 18A-4-7a(k)
Related Cases Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Dillon v. Wyoming Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf & the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam); Blake v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003); Baker v. Bd. of Trustees/W. Va. Univ. at Parkersburg, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998)
Keywords Reduction in Force; RIF; Arbitrary and Capricious; Lack of Need; Vendetta; Terminated; Purge; Pretext; CTE
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by Respondent as a CTE teacher at Tolsia High School. In March 2017, Grievant was informed that he was subject to a reduction in force (“RIF”) for lack of need, and that the superintendent would be recommending that his contract for employment be terminated at the end of the school year. Respondent approved this action and Grievant’s contract was so terminated. Grievant filed this grievance asserting that Respondent subjected him to a reduction in force and terminated his contract not for lack of need, but instead because of the superintendent’s personal vendetta against Grievant’s family. Therefore, his reduction in force and termination was arbitrary and capricious. Respondent denied Grievant’s claims and argued that it properly imposed the reduction in force and terminated Grievant’s contract. Grievant failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again