Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jack
|
|
Last Name
|
Sheffler
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/13/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0955-CU
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Concord University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Professor/Department Chair
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bd. of Educ. v. Wirt, 192 W. Va. 568, 453 S.E.2d 402 (1994); Martin v. Pleasants County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0197-PleED (Jan. 31, 2008); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed. 2d 494, (1985); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Kennedy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2009-1443-DHHR (March 11, 2010), aff’d, Cir. Ct., of Kanawha County, Civil Action No. 10-AA-73 (June 9, 2011); Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Credibility; Merits; Dishonesty; Theft; Due Process; Gross Misconduct
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
G appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 12/14/18, CA #18-AA-260 (Salango); Affirmed, 5/20/19; Grievant appealed to Supreme Court 6/19/2019; Supreme Court Memorandum Decision issued Affirming 9/23/2020
|
|
Supreme Court
|
Grievant appealed Circuit Court Order to Supreme Court 6/19/2019; Supreme Court No. 19-0570; Supreme Court Decision entered 9/23/2020; Circuirt Court Order Affirmed
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Concord University as a tenured professor in the Art Department of the Institution. Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment contending he is guilty of conduct which constituted dishonesty, insubordination and theft. Grievant contends the dismissal is improper. Grievant challenges Respondent’s ability to lawfully terminate his employment for the rationale communicated and contends any other reason later concocted is in violation of his due process.
Respondent informed Grievant that identified behavior was unacceptable and that failure to rectify the situation would result in the termination of his employment. Grievant is of the position that it is beyond Respondent’s scope of authority to mandate the requested restitution. Respondent’s notice of termination indicates a violation of professional responsibility, theft and insubordination. Grievant denies wrongdoing and maintains his termination was for conduct outside of his employer’s realm of authority. Respondent established a judicious connection between established conduct and the employment of Grievant. Respondent demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence grounds for the termination of Grievant’s employment.
|
Back to Results
Search Again