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); Black v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-06-707 (Mar. 23, 1990); Lilly v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-45-040 (Oct. 17, 1990), aff'd Cir. Ct. of Kanawha County, No. 90-AA-181 (Mar. 25, 1993); Stover v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-20-75 (June 26, 1989); Switzer v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-20-013 (April 11, 2003); Hyre v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., 186 W. Va. 267, 412 S.E.2d 265 (1991); Syl. Pt. 3, Dillon v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Wyoming, 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); 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); Syl. Pt. 2, Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant alleged she should have been selected over the successful applicant for the position of Principal of Bennerhassett elementary school because she was the most qualified for the position. The record demonstrated the highest criteria for consideration was applicants with past administrative experience as principals or assistant principals, which the Grievant lacked. Grievant failed to demonstrate how her experience as a director of a private school or being an online professor equates to actual administrative experience as preferred for the position. Grievant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her non-selection for the position was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of Respondent’s discretion, or otherwise contrary to any applicable law, rule or regulation. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|