Database Search Result Details

First Name Debra
Last Name Shantee
Decision Date 5/16/2022
Docket Number 2020-1468-PutED
ALJ CHL
Respondent Putnam County Board of Education
Employment Type SERV
Job Title Bus Operator
Topics Suspension; Termination; Dismissal
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved that Grievant engaged in conduct constituting insubordination and/or willful neglect of duty justifying suspension and dismissal.
Outcome Granted
Statutes W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 18A-2-8; W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-92-21; W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-92-10; W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-92-1
Related Cases Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Bell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-20-005 (Apr. 16, 1991); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Ca. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Graham v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-40-206 (Sep. 30, 1999); Allen v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-31-021 (July 11, 1990); Duruttya v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 29-88-104 (Feb. 28, 1990); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd./Shepherd Coll., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) (per curiam); Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff'd, Sexton v. Marshall Univ., 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989); Adkins v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-06-656 (May 23, 1990); Tolliver v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-31-493 (Dec. 26, 2001); Williams v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-06-325 (Oct. 31, 1996); Jones v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-151 (Aug. 24, 1995); Hoover v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-21-427 (Feb. 24, 1994); Bd. of Educ. v. Chaddock, 183 W. Va. 638, 398 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1990); Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Geho v. Marshall County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-1395-MarED (Oct. 30, 2008); 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); Maxey v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., 212 W. Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Mason County Bd. of Educ. v. State Superintendent of Sch., 165 W. Va. 732, 274 S.E.2d 435 (1980); Mullins v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket Number 2012-0671-McDED (Mar. 14, 2013); Holton v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2018-1301-LinED (Jan. 14, 2019), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 19-AA-6 (Aug. 11, 2021); Thomas v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2018-1419-KanED (Dec. 19, 2018); Chapman v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 2018-1321-JefED (Jan. 3, 2019), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 19-AA-7 (May 10, 2019), amend., (June 5, 2019)
Keywords Suspension; Termination; Insubordination; Willful Neglect of Duty; Correctable Conduct; Arbitrary and Capricious; Performance; Improve; Policy 4336; Cellphone; Video; Speeding; Safety; Electronic Device; Left of Center; Railroad; Pothole; Damage; Infraction; Recordings; Stop Sign
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Respondent Appealed to Kanawha County Cir Ct, Civil Action No. 22-AA-31 (Bloom); Reversed 10/31/2022 11/30/22 Grievant Appealed to Intermediate Court of Appeals, No 22-ICA-287
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Bus Operator. Respondent suspended Grievant then subsequently terminated her contract of employment for violating safety policies and the Employee Code of Conduct. Respondent alleges that Grievant’s conduct constituted insubordination and willful neglect of duty. Grievant denies Respondent’s allegations and asserts that her suspension and subsequent dismissal were the result of reprisal and discrimination. Grievant further argues that because her conduct was correctable, Respondent was required to give her an opportunity to improve before terminating her employment contract. Respondent failed to meet its burden of proving insubordination or willful neglect of duty by a preponderance of the evidence. The conduct for which Grievant was disciplined was correctable. As such, Respondent was required to grant Grievant an opportunity to improve before terminating her employment contract. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED.

Back to Results Search Again