Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Christopher
|
|
Last Name
|
Cunningham
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/4/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0771-CalED
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Calhoun County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Substitute Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved that Grievant intentionally violated policy or refused to follow specific instructions.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8; W. Va. Code St. R. § 126.99.5
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Dep’t of Trans., Div. of Highways v. Litten, No. 12-0287 (W.Va. Supreme Court, June 5, 2013); Parham v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., 192 W. Va. 540, 453 S.E.2d 374 (1994); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Jones v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Yerrid v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2009-1692-DOT (Mar. 26, 2010); Shores v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 2009-1583-DOT (Dec. 1, 2009); Maxey v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., 212 W. Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Williams v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2012-0669-LinED (Oct. 23, 2012); McComas v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-1489-MerED (Oct. 24. 2014)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Verbal Threat; Insubordination; Policy; Correctable Conduct
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was suspended for ten days without pay for allegedly making a verbal threat to a student in a disciplinary situation. Respondent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant threatened the student. Rather, Grievant warned the student that he would have to restrain him if the student’s aggressive behavior continued to escalate. Reasonable restraint would have been an appropriate reaction if the student’s behavior had continued. Grievant’s actions were an appropriate warning of potential consequences for bad behavior, not a threat. Additionally, any errors in judgement made by Grievant were related to his performance and lack of adequate training. Therefore, he was entitled to an opportunity to improve his performance prior to implementation of the penalties sent out in W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8(a).
|
Back to Results
Search Again