Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Savanna
|
|
Last Name
|
Holt
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/17/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0169-MerED
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Mercer County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Experience Credit; Pay Increase
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that the decision to deny her the three-year experience credit granted to special education teachers by West Virginia Code § 18A-4-2(e) was clearly wrong or arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 18A-4-2(e); W. Va. Code § 18A-1-1(a); W. Va. Code § 18A-1-1(b); W. Va. Code § 18A-1-1(C)(1); WVDE Policy 2419
|
|
Related Cases
|
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); Security National Bank & Trust Company v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166 W.Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (W. Va. 1981); Smith v. Bd. of Educ., Syl. Pt. 3, 176 W. Va. 65, 66, 341 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985); 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); Townsend v. Barbour Cty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2020-0238-BarED (Mar. 17, 2020)
|
|
Keywords
|
Experience Credit; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious; English as a Second Language; ESL; IEP; LIEP; Special Education; Interpretation; Clearly Erroneous; Certified List; WVEIS
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a classroom teacher and teaches English as a Second Language. Grievant asserts that she as she performs the same job as special education teachers, and she is entitled to receive a pay increase designated by statute for special education teachers. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims and asserts that Grievant is not entitled to the pay increase she seeks. Grievant failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again