Database Search Result Details

First Name Mark
Last Name Blackburn
Decision Date 3/16/2023
Docket Number 2021-2450-CONS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Mingo County Board of Education
Employment Type PROF
Job Title Teacher
Topics Selection
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of evidence that he was the most qualified candidate for the principal position. Whether the selection process was flawed
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a; West Virginia Code § 18A-2-1
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); Dillon v. Wyoming County Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); 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); Komorowski v. Marshall County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 08-25-007 (Mar. 23, 2009); 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), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Harrison v. Ginsberg, 169 W. Va. 162, 286 S.E.2d 276 (1982); Forsythe v. Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009)
Keywords Selection; Most Qualified Candidate; Interview Committee; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals Respondent appealed, 23-ICA-151; reversed
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was regularly employed by Respondent as a classroom teacher. Grievant applied for the Principal position at Lenore PK-8, but he was not selected for the same. Grievant argued that he should have been selected for the position because he was the most qualified applicant. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims and asserts that it properly selected the most qualified applicant based upon the factors listed in West Virginia Code§ 18A-4-7a. Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the selection process used by the interview committee to select the Principal for Lenore PK-8 was flawed, that Intervenor was not the most qualified candidate, and that its decision to select Intervenor was arbitrary and capricious. Further, Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the interview committee abused its discretion by weighting the single subjective factor more than the other eight objective factors combined which resulted in the selection of a candidate who was not the most qualified for the position. Grievant failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was the most qualified candidate for the principal position at Lenore PK-8. Therefore, the grievance is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.

Back to Results Search Again