Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Ernest
|
|
Last Name
|
Gooding, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/9/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1533-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
DOE
|
|
Job Title
|
Principal
|
|
Topics
|
Default
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether reinstatement of Grievants positions is a legal and appropriate remedy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Remedy Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(b)(1); 156 CSR 1 § 3 (2008)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Donnellan v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-17-003 (Sept. 20, 2002); Hunt v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 97-BEP-412 Dec. 31, 1997); Brown v. Logan County Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 2008-0567-LogED (Oct. 24, 2008); Kings Daughters Housing, Inc. v. Paige, 506 S.E.2d 329, 203 W.Va. 74, (W.Va. 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); Armstrong v. W. Va. Div. of Culture & History, 229 W. Va. 538, 729 S.E.2d 860, (2012); Williams v. Brown, 190 W. Va. 202, 437 S.E.2d 775 (1993); Wounaris v. W. Va. State College, 214 W. Va. 241, 588 S.E.2d 406 (2003); Cordle v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 174 W. Va. 321, 325 S.E.2d 111 (1984)
|
|
Keywords
|
Default; Timelines; Level One; At-will Employees; Dismissal; Substantial Public Policy
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants claim that they are entitled to prevail on the merits of the grievances because Respondent failed to hold a level one hearing within the time limits prescribed by the grievance statute. Respondent admits that no level one hearing was held and initially argued that it was justifiably delayed. Respondent also argues that the remedy of reinstatement is unavailable to Grievants because they were at-will employees and did not provide credible proof that a substantial public policy was violate. The violation alleged in the consolidated grievance did raise a violation of a substantial public policy as a matter of law. Whether Grievants could have proven that violation by a preponderance of the evidence does not matter because they prevail on the merits by default. Since Grievants prevailed on the matter of a violation of substantial public policy, reinstatement is a legal and appropriate remedy.
|
Back to Results
Search Again