| First Name | Wanda |
| Last Name | Tolbert |
| Decision Date | 12/21/2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-0790-KanED |
| ALJ | BTC |
| Respondent | Kanawha County Board of Education |
| Employment Type | PROF |
| Job Title | Classroom Teacher--homebound |
| Topics | Non-Disciplinary Employment Actions |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent acted arbitriarily and capriciously in eliminating Grievant's position. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018) |
| 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); State ex rel. Boner v. Kanawha Cty. Bd. of Educ., 197 W. Va. 176, 475 S.E.2d 176 (1996); Syl. Pt. 2, Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996) (citing Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982)); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and 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); Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003) |
| Keywords | Reduction in force |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant is employed by Respondent as a classroom teacher. At the time of the grievance filing, Grievant was employed as a full-time homebound teacher and filed her grievance protesting the elimination of her position. Grievant argued that the elimination of her position was in violation of a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals opinion. Respondent asserts the elimination of the position was within its discretion, was not arbitrary and capricious, and not in violation of the opinion. Grievant failed to prove that the elimination of her position was in violation of the opinion or was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is denied. |