Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Slav
|
|
Last Name
|
Gratchev
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/23/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-1422-MU
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Marshall University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Associate Professor
|
|
Topics
|
Tenure
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent’s decision to deny his application for promotion to the rank of Professor was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Harrison v. W. Va. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 93-BOD-400 (April 11, 1995); Sui v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984); Butler v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2014-0539-DHHR (Mar. 16, 2015); Hart v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 95-BOD-198 (Mar.6, 1996); Finver v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-271 (Oct. 15, 1997)
|
|
Keywords
|
Tenure; Promotion; Policy; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is contesting the denial of a promotion to the rank of Professor at Marshall University. He asserts that his teaching performance was not properly assessed causing him to receive a lower ranking in that criteria. The consequence of that ranking was that Grievant did not qualify for the promotion to Professor. To be promoted a candidate must be ranked “exemplary” in two of the three areas of performance; Research and Scholarship, Teaching and Advising, and Service. His performance was rated as “exemplary” in the area of Research and Scholarship but only “professional” in the areas of Teaching and Advising and Service. Grievant did not contest the rating in the Service category but disagreed with the rating of his teaching performance. He argues that the rating was arbitrary and capricious because the Committees either ignored or did not fully appreciate his performance in that area. While reasonable people might disagree with the rating Grievant received in Teaching, Respondent demonstrated that the rating committees fully reviewed all of the materials submitted by Grievant and used the appropriate criteria for judging his application. Grievant did not prove that Respondent’s decision was arbitrary or capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again