Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Iyad
|
|
Last Name
|
Hijazi
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/23/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1638-MU
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Marshall University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Assistant Professor
|
|
Topics
|
Tenure
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved the denial of his promotion and tenure application was discrimination, failure to conform with policy and procedure, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. §§ 133-9-7.1.3 and 7.2 9.4; W. Va. Code St. R. § 133-9-9.1; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cohen v. W. Va. Univ., Docket No. BOR1-86-247-2 (July 7, 1987); Carpenter v. Bd. of Trustees/W.Va. Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-220 (Mar. 18, 1994); Harrison v. W.Va. Bd. of Directors/Bluefield State College, Docket No. 93-BOD-400 (Apr. 11, 1995); Gardner v. Bd. of Trustees/Marshall Univ., Docket No. 93-BOT-391 (Aug. 26, 1994); Baker v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998); Flint v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 251, 257, 531 S.E.2d 76, 82 (1999)
|
|
Keywords
|
Tenure; Promotion; Policy; Discrimination; Decisional Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a probationary Assistant Professor within the College of Information Technology and Engineering in the Weisberg Division of Engineering to serve as faculty in a new mechanical engineering program. Grievant applied for promotion and tenure asserting exemplary performance in research, scholarly, and creative activity. Although the division committee had a tie vote for and against recommendation, and the division chair recommended Grievant, Grievant’s application was not recommended by the college committee, the dean, or the provost and the university president ultimately denied promotion and tenure. The decisional process by the non-recommending reviewers through the college level did not conform with applicable policy and procedure and Grievant suffered significant harm as a result. The non-recommending decisions were also arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is granted.
|
Back to Results
Search Again