Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Douglas
|
|
Last Name
|
Newberry
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/7/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1130-WooEDDEF
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Wood County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Default
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether default occurred at level one of the grievance procedure.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(b)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(b)(2); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(2); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-3(n)(2); W.VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(c)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Donnellan v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-17-003 (Sept. 20, 2002), aff’d, Harrison Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action #02-C-676-3 (Aug. 13, 2004), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 050222 (May 9, 2005); Dunlap v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 2008-0808-DEP (Dec. 8, 2008), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 09-AA-73 (Sept. 10, 2009); Coats-Riley v. W. Va. State Tax Dep’t, Docket No. 2014-1745-DOR (May 4, 2015); Bumgardner v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-0927-KanED (Nov. 19, 2015); Vance v. Div. of Juv. Serv., 2014-0024-MAPS (Jan. 31, 2014); See Kings Daughters Housing, Inc. v. Paige, 506 S.E.2d 329, 203 W.Va. 74 (1998); Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W.Va. 297, 311 S.E.2d 399 (1995); Bowe v. Workers Compensation Comm’n, Docket No. 04-WCC-054D (Apr. 12, 2004)
|
|
Keywords
|
Default; Timelines; Conference; Decision; Justified; Delay; Outside; Control; Failure to Act; Unexpected Event; Extend; Deadlines; Assumption; Defense; Responsibility; Time-Sensitive
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant argues that a default occurred at level one of the grievance process because the level one decision was not issued within fifteen days after the conclusion of the level one conference as required by statute. Respondent argues that there was no default, but if there were, it was the result of events outside its control; therefore, any delay was justified. Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a default occurred at level one. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its failure to act within the required time limit was the result of an unexpected event, or events, that was outside of the defaulter’s control. Therefore, the default was not the result of a justified delay. Accordingly, Grievant prevails by default.
|
Back to Results
Search Again