Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jason
|
|
Last Name
|
McCauley
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/16/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0728-BerED
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Berkeley County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Teacher
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-20-005 (Apr. 16, 1991); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Va.1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Santer v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-20-092 (June 30, 2003); Wells v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2009-1714-UpsED (May 6, 2011); Colley v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2020-1074-LogED (Jan. 8, 2021); Blankenship v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0772-McDED (Aug. 15, 2016); Russell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0447-KanED (Mar. 21, 2016); Crum v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1197-CONS (Oct. 19, 2015); Maxey v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., 212 W.Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Jarrell v. Jackson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-18-204 (Oct. 27, 2004); Pilkington v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-1498-RalED (June 15, 2017)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Probationary Employee; Insubordination; Employee Code of Conduct; Willful Neglect of Duty
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed as a probationary teacher by the Berkeley County Board of Education. Grievant was dismissed from his contract of employment for insubordination and willful neglect of duty following an incident involving a student that resulted in a finding of neglect by the Department of Health and Human Resources. Respondent proved these charges by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, Respondent was acting within its discretion to dismiss a probationary employee pursuant to the applicable law. The record did not support a finding that Grievant was entitled to a plan of improvement or a corrective action plan.
|
Back to Results
Search Again