Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Diane
|
|
Last Name
|
Carpenter, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/27/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1027-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Webster County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Aide
|
|
Topics
|
Seniority
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants proved that Respondent was required to use Aide seniority for ECCAT employment decisions.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b(d)(2)(C)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Mayle v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., No. 17-0204 (W. Va. Supreme Court) (January 8, 2018) (memorandum decision); Conners v. Hardy County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-16-459 (Jan. 14, 2000); Toney v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0533-LinED (Oct. 31, 2008); Miller v. Bd. of Educ. of Boone Cty., 190 W.Va. 153, 159, 437 S.E.2d 591, 597 (1993)
|
|
Keywords
|
Seniority; ECCAT; Certification; Tie-breaker
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievants Davis/Holcomb/Flanagan/McCourt appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 5/3/19, CA #19-AA-42/43/44/45, Bloom; G Carpenter appealed 5/10/19 CA #19-AA-49, Salango; Circuit Court Consolidated #19-AA-42/43/44/45,under 19-AA-42; 19-AA-49 remains seperate; Judge Bloom issued Final Order 10/10/2019 in 19-AA-42: Reversed by Supreme Court Final Opinion No. 19-1028; Judge Salango issued final order 2/14/2020 in 19-AA-49: Reversed; Judge Bloom issued Final Order on Remand Affirming 5/6/2021
|
|
Supreme Court
|
Respondent appealed Circuit Court order 19-AA-42 on 11/18/19, assigned Supreme Court No. 19-1028; Respondent appealed Circuit Court order 19-AA-49 on 3/16/20, assigned Supreme Court No. 20-0231; Supreme Court Opinion issued on 3/26/2021 in No. 19-1028: Circuit Court Order 19-AA-42 Reversed and Remanded
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants are employed by Respondent as Aides holding ECCAT certification. In the past Respondent ranked them for seniority purposes based upon their Aide seniority for Aide and ECCAT purposes. In early 2018 Respondent determined that even though Grievants have different start dates as Aides they all entered into their ECCAT duties on the same date. Respondent determined that Grievants were tied for ECCAT seniority and required Grievants to participate in a random selection process to determine their ECCAT seniority ranking.
Grievants argue that their ECCAT seniority should be calculated the same as their Aide seniority. Additionally, they aver that the process for determining the seniority ranking for employees was held years after the statutory time limit for that procedure.
Respondent’s proved that the ECCAT seniority is not the same as Aide seniority and that it was proper to hold the random selection process outside the statutory time limit when it was necessary to correct a prior mistake in seniority calculation.
|
Back to Results
Search Again