Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Davis, et al., v. Webster County Bd. of Educ., Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 19-AA-42 (Oct. 11, 2019); Carpenter, et al., v. Webster County Bd. of Educ., Docket Number 2018-1027-CONS (Mar. 27, 2019); Dillon v. Wyoming County Board of Education, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Mayle v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., No. 17-0204 (W. Va. Supreme Court) (January 8, 2018); Adkins v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1620-FayED (Oct. 19, 2016); Taylor v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-38-213 (Oct. 14, 2005); Cosner v. Gilmer County Bd. of Educ., and Skinner, Docket No. 2015-1520-GilED (July 27, 2016); Paugh v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1574-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016); and, Mayle v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0113-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as an Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher (ECCAT). Grievant applied for an ECCAT position, but another applicant with less Aide seniority, but more ECCAT seniority, was selected to fill the vacancy. Grievant argues that Respondent should have used Aide seniority, and not ECCAT seniority to determine who was to be awarded the position. Respondent argues that its use of ECCAT seniority to determine the successful applicant was proper. Grievant failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this grievance is DENIED.
|