Database Search Result Details

First Name Howard
Last Name Meddings
Decision Date 7/23/2021
Docket Number 2020-1523-WayED
ALJ CHL
Respondent Wayne County Board of Education
Employment Type SERV
Job Title Inventory Supervisor/Groundsman/Handyman
Topics Reduction in Force
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(l)
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); Dillon v. Wyoming County Board of Education, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000); 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 & 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); Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997); Cook v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-01-154 (Apr. 8, 1994); Poore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Bureau for Children & Families, Docket No. 2010-0448-DHHR (Feb. 11, 2011); Frank’s Shoe Store v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 179 W. Va. 53, 365 S.E.2d 251 (1986); Warner v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-0986-DHHR (Oct. 21, 2013)
Keywords Reduction in Force; Qualifications; Job Duties; Harassment; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Before his position was abolished through a reduction in force (RIF), Grievant was regularly employed by Respondent as an Inventory Supervisor/Groundsman/Handyman. Grievant made suggestions about how his department should be reorganized to be more efficient, which included RIF’ing his position and creating three new positions. Grievant worked on this reorganization plan with the Superintendent. Grievant’s position was RIF’d as he had proposed to the Superintendent and he did not contest the same. However, the Board refused to approve the creation of the three new positions as proposed. The Board changed one of the three to a professional position, for which Grievant was not qualified, and rewrote the job qualifications and responsibilities. The Board did not approve the creation of the other two positions. As a result, Grievant had no employment for the upcoming school year. Grievant argues that the Board engaged in acts of reprisal, retaliation, and harassment. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims and asserts that the Board acted properly, violating no rule, policy, or law. Grievant failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again