Database Search Result Details

First Name Salena
Last Name Williams-Grant
Decision Date 8/2/2019
Docket Number 2018-1479-CONS
ALJ JSF
Respondent Jefferson County Board of Education
Employment Type PROF
Job Title Teacher
Topics Reprimand
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved that Grievant was insubordinate on multiple occasions prior to being issued each letter of reprimand.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-12a(b)(6); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(h)
Related Cases Simms v. Division of Natural Resources, Docket No. 2015-1156-DOCS (Nov. 12, 2015); Baker v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-10-427 (Jan. 24, 1995); Beckley v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-22-168 (Aug. 31, 1999); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep't of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990); Maxey v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., 212 W. Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Vickers v. Bd. of Directors/W. Va. State College, Docket No. 97-BOD-122B (Aug. 7, 1998); Parker v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 97-HHR-042B (Sept. 30, 1997); Byrd v. Department of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 2017-0769-DHHR (Aug. 8, 2017), rev’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 17-AA-74 (March 2, 2018); Freeman v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Educ., 215 W. Va. 272, 277, 599 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2004); Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997)
Keywords Letter of Reprimand; Disrespectful Conduct; Misconduct; Insubordination; Corrective Action Plan; Retaliation; Discrimination; Harassment; Due Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Grievant appeal to Kanawha County Circuit Court 8/29/19, CA # 19-AA-95; Judge Salango
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant has been employed by Respondent as a teacher at Jefferson High School for 36 years and is black. After determining that Grievant was disrespectful and insubordinate, Respondent placed her on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and issued her a letter of reprimand. When Grievant used her CAP assignments as a vehicle to criticize supervisors, Respondent issued a second letter of reprimand. Grievant contends that Respondent’s actions were retaliatory, since she had previously filed a grievance against Respondent, and a denial of due process, since she had no disciplinary record, had never been asked for her version of events, and had never received lesser directives such as a Focused Support Plan (FSP) or verbal warning. Grievant asserts that Respondent’s actions entailed race and age discrimination and harassment. Respondent proved a basis for its letters of reprimand. Grievant did not prove she was entitled to an FSP or verbal warning. Grievant did not make prima facie case for retaliation. Grievant did not prove that the discipline was arbitrary and capricious, that she was denied due process, or that she was subject to discrimination and harassment. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again