Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jennifer
|
|
Last Name
|
Mosher
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/9/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-1040-MU
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Marshall University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Associate Professor
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s tenured employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
West Virginia University v. Sauvageotk, 408 S.E.2d 286, 185 W.Va. 534 (W. Va. 1991); Clarke v. West Va. Bd. of Regents, 166 W. Va. 702, 709-710, 279 S.E.2d 169, 175 (1981); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S. Ct. 1399, 22 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1969); United States v. Vandevere, 849 Fed. Appx. 69, 70-71, (2021); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Alderman v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., 223 W. Va. 431; 675 S.E.2d 907 (2009); Durstein v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 2017-1955-CabED (Sept .22, 2017); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505U.S. 377 (1992)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Policy; In-Class Statements; COVID-19 Pandemic; Freedom of Speech; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant made statements of a political nature which allegedly wished death upon a group of people who were holding mass rallies without public safety precautions during the COVID 19 pandemic. The statements were made during discussions at the beginning of two classes which were held virtually and recorded. Someone gained access to the recordings and posted selected clips of Grievant’s comments on Twitter which cause a great deal of reaction among people on social media. Respondent dismissed Grievant alleging that her comments directly and substantially impair her ability to fulfill her teaching responsibilities at Marshall University. The basis of this conclusion was that the Provost and President believed conservative students would feel unsafe and uncomfortable taking Grievant’s classes in the future.
Respondent did not prove the reasons for Grievant’s dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. It is more likely than not that the stated reasons were not the actual reasons for Grievant’s dismissal. Additionally, her comments were protected by the First Amendment, as well as Grievant’s rights related to academic freedom and tenure.
|
Back to Results
Search Again