Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Claude
|
|
Last Name
|
Dyer
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/6/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0039-LinED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Lincoln County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Coordinator/Chief Mechanic
|
|
Topics
|
Written Reprimand
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the written reprimand issued to Grievant was justified.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
West Virginia State Board of Education Policy 4336, 126 C.S.R 92; WVBE Policy 2322; West Virginia Code 18-2E-5
|
|
Related Cases
|
McDaniel v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2017-1404-CONS (June 30, 2017); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-01-394 (Jan. 31, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Written Reprimand; Job Performance; Corrective Disciplinary Action; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by a county school board as a transportation coordinator/chief mechanic. Grievant was given a Letter of Reprimand noting that there was a failure to perform the requisite amount of Preventative Maintenance Inspections on school buses from the time period of September 2020 through February 2021. Grievant is of the opinion that he is being erroneously blamed for the shortcoming of the Administration that has failed to meet the expectations of the West Virginia Department of Education resulting in a state of emergency and threatened takeover.
Grievance alleges that he was wrongfully reprimanded. The written reprimand expressed dissatisfaction and concern regarding Grievant’s job performance and conduct. Respondent used a lesser corrective disciplinary action. Respondent decision to issue a corrective letter of reprimand does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Respondent established appropriate grounds for disciplinary action. Grievant did not establish that the letter of reprimand was unreasonable, arbitrary, and/or capricious. Respondent’s disciplinary action is not established to be a violation of any statute, policy, rule, or regulation. By a preponderance of the evidence, Respondent demonstrated justification for the issuance of a written reprimand to Grievant. Accordingly, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again