Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Alyssa
|
|
Last Name
|
Mick
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/4/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0038-HanED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Hancock County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Principal
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the selection process was unreasonably tainted by arbitrary and capricious actions.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-1
|
|
Related Cases
|
Oldham v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-06-269 (Feb. 27, 2004); Elkins v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-03-415 (Dec. 28, 1995); Hughes v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-22-543 (Jan. 27, 1995); Blair v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-22-009 (Apr. 10, 1992); Harrison v. Ginsberg, 169 W. Va. 162, 286 S.E.2d 276 (1982); Stover v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-20-75 (June 26, 1989); Barnett, et al.. v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., and McMillian, Docket No. 2015-1762-CONS (May 31, 2016); Berry v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-0450-BooED (Sept. 29, 2014); Gore v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-31-532 (April 26, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection Process; Qualifications; Favoritism; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent Board of Education selected Ms. Parsons over Grievant as Director of Personnel upon nomination of the Superintendent. Grievant claims to be the most qualified of the four candidates interviewed by the Superintendent. Grievant alleges that the Superintendent preselected Ms. Parsons and weighed the §18A-4-7a selection factors in her favor due to their close friendship. Respondent contends it has discretion to attribute weight regardless of friendship. It asserts that the Superintendent and the Board each have exclusive roles in the selection process, with the Superintendent having sole authority to nominate and the Board sole authority to select or reject a nomination. Yet, State Code assigns the Board authority to weigh selection factors. The Superintendent usurped this authority in unilaterally giving more weight to candidate interviews under the “other measures” selection factor. The Superintendent used this most subjective factor to favor Ms. Parsons and justified the weight assigned using ambiguous traits such as “trustworthiness.” Grievant proved that Respondent abused its discretion and played favorites but failed to prove she was the most qualified. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
|
Back to Results
Search Again