Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Shawna
|
|
Last Name
|
Smith
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/14/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0244-CabED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Cabell County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent’s selection making process was fatally flawed or performed in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a
|
|
Related Cases
|
Elkins v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-03-415 (Dec. 28, 1995); Hughes v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-22-543 (Jan. 27, 1995); Black v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-06-707 (Mar. 23, 1990); Switzer v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-20-013 (April 11, 2003); Hyre v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., 186 W. Va. 267, 412 S.E.2d 265 (1991)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Interview Committee; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 6/18/19 CA# 19-AA-70 (Kaufman)
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant alleged that she should have been selected over the successful applicant for the position of Assistant Principal at Huntington East Middle School. West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a sets out specific criteria the Board must use in determining which candidate is the most qualified for a professional position. While each of the factors listed in W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a must be considered, this Code Section permits county boards of education to determine the weight to be applied to each factor when filling an administrative position, so long as this does not result in an abuse of discretion.
Respondent placed a weighted value on identified factors. Respondent used a recognized selection process to identify the successful applicant. Grievant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision-making process was fatally flawed, that Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or that Respondent otherwise overstepped its discretion as described in W. VA. CODE § 18A-4-7a. The decision reached was not so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference of opinion. In any event, Grievant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her non-selection for the position was an abuse of Respondent’s discretion, or otherwise contrary to any applicable law, rule or regulation. This Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again