Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lois
|
|
Last Name
|
Spencer
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/18/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0221-MinED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Mineral County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Principal
|
|
Topics
|
Disciplinary
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent was justified in terminating Grievant for insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and harrassing co-workers.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 18A-2-8(b); W. VA. CODE § 18A-2-12a; W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
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); Syl. Pt. 2, Parham v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., 192 W. Va. 540, 453 S.E.2d 374 (1994); Syl. Pt. 3, Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Bell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-20-005 (Apr. 16, 1991); 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)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a principal when dismissed for insubordination and willful neglect of duty. Respondent alleges Grievant harassed former Assistant Principal Connor and current Assistant Principal Droppleman with rumors of affairs, demeaned them and others, and lied to investigators about her behavior. Grievant denies many of the allegations but asserts her conduct is correctable. Ironically, Grievant contends Respondent previously addressed the Ms. Connor allegations through an evaluation. Thus, Grievant was on notice that her behavior was unacceptable when she later engaged in similar conduct. Respondent proved that Grievant engaged in willful neglect of duty and insubordination when she lied to investigators and harassed multiple employees. Grievant’s conduct was not correctable. Dismissal was justified. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again