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); Bell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-20-005 (Apr. 16, 1991); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Ca. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Graham v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-40-206 (Sep. 30, 1999); 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); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Durst v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 06-26-028R (May 30, 2008); Posey v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0328-LewED (July 25, 2008); Jones v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2009-1075-FayED (Aug. 5, 2009); Mellow v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2010-1397-JefED (Oct. 8, 2010)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Aide IV/Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher-I (ECCAT-I) and had been so employed since on or about February 12, 2019. Respondent first suspended, then terminated Grievant’s employment citing her lack of an ECCAT certification rendering her incompetent to hold her position. Grievant does not dispute that she lacked her ECCAT certification. However, Grievant argues that her failure to properly obtain her ECCAT certification was correctable conduct, and, as such, would be entitled to notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to improve before her employment was terminated. Grievant also argues that as she was multiclassified as an ECCAT/Aide, she was entitled to retention as in an Aide capacity. Respondent met its burden of proving that it properly suspended and subsequently dismissed Grievant from employment because she was incompetent to hold her position. Grievant failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|