Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Robin
|
|
Last Name
|
Sharp
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/15/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2475-TayED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Taylor County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved that Grievant’s conduct was willful neglect of duty justifying dismissal.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8(a); W. Va. Code § 18A-2-12a; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018)
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8(a) Bd. of Educ. of the County of Gilmer v. Chaddock, 183 W.Va. 638, 640, 398 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1990); Mason County Bd. of Educ. v. State Superintendent of Sch., 165 W. Va. 732, 739; 274 S.E.2d 435 (1980); Bierer v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-19-595 (May 17, 2002); Waggoner v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-1570-CabED (Oct. 31, 2008); Paxton v. Bureau of Senior Services, Docket No. 2010-1035-BSS (June 30, 2010); Waite v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 161 W. Va. 154, 241 S.E.2d 164 (1977); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Dooley v. Dept. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Will Neglect of Duty; Mitigation; Correctable Conduct; Arbitrary and Capricious; Due Process
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
While employed as a bus driver for Respondent, Grievant drag raced a school bus through a busy school parking lot. Grievant was dismissed for willful neglect of duty in endangering students. Grievant maintains she was punished twice and her dismissal arbitrary and capricious because the superintendent first recommended to the board of education that her punishment be a 30-day unpaid suspension. She contends she was denied due process because, even though she advocated her case when the board of education considered dismissal, she was not present when it initially considered and rejected the recommended suspension. She claims her dismissal was too severe due to lack of prior discipline, her conduct was correctable, and her dismissal warranted mitigation. Respondent proved that Grievant knowingly endangered students and engaged in willful neglect of duty. Grievant did not prove she was disciplined twice and denied due process, or that mitigation is warranted. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again