| First Name | John |
| Last Name | Putnam |
| Decision Date | 5/18/2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-0585-GilED |
| ALJ | BTC |
| Respondent | Gilmer County Board of Education |
| Employment Type | CB-Professional |
| Job Title | Principal |
| Topics | Focused Support Plan, Resignation |
| Primary Issues | Whether the grievance is moot |
| Outcome | Moot |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19. (2018); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.2; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.3; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-142-9; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3; |
| Related Cases | Bragg v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-348 (May 28, 2004); Burkhammer v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No.03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No.95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Pritt, et al., v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No.2008-0812-CONS (May 30, 2008). Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002), aff’d,Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 02-AA-87 (Aug. 14, 2003); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009). Dooley v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No.94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991).” Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000). Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd.of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993). Baker v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 97-BOD-265 (Oct. 8, 1997). |
| Keywords | Focus Support Plan |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | Grivent appealed to ICA on 07/12/23; No. 23-ICA-288; ICA issued Dismissal Order on 9/27/23 |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed by Respondent as the Principal of Gilmer County High School. Grievant challenges his placement on a focused support plan. Grievant has now resigned from employment. Respondent moved to dismiss the grievance as moot. As Grievant has resigned, the focused support plan he grieves has no practical consequences for Grievant, so a decision on the propriety of the plan would be merely advisory. As the Grievance Board does not issue advisory opinions, the grievance is moot and must be dismissed. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed. |