Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Ronald
|
|
Last Name
|
Sanbower, Sr.
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/31/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2490-RalED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Raleigh County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Custodian
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant violated applicable code of conduct and/or policy justifying disciplinary action.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8; Department of Education Policy 5902
|
|
Related Cases
|
Lancaster v. Ritchie County Board of Education, No. 15-0554 (W. Va. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2016) (memorandum decision); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Termination; Code of Conduct; Sexual Harassment; Misconduct; Insubordination; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a custodian at Liberty High School. Grievant was suspended without pay and then terminated from employment following the investigation of a complaint. Respondent maintains that Grievant engaged in conduct that violated both its employee code of conduct and sexual harassment policies and that such violations of each constitutes insubordination, immorality, impacting the learning environment of students, and jeopardizing the health, safety, and welfare of students. Respondent bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disciplinary action taken was justified.
Respondent highlights that it is within its authority to punish Grievant for his conduct, up to and including termination. Grievant seeks mitigation of the punishment imposed by Respondent, maintaining that the punishment was disproportionate to the offense. An allegation that a particular disciplinary measure is disproportionate to the offense proven is an affirmative defense. Grievant bears the burden of demonstrating that the penalty was clearly excessive, reflects an abuse of the employer’s discretion or an inherent disproportion between the offense and the personnel action. Mitigation was seriously considered, but Grievant failed to meet his burden of proof that the punishment should be mitigated. Respondent established Grievant engaged in conduct impacting the learning environment and jeopardizing the health, safety, and welfare of students. Grievant violated applicable school employee code of conduct and policies. Accordingly, this Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again