Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Angela
|
|
Last Name
|
Lovejoy
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/31/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0140-TayED
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Taylor County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Secretary
|
|
Topics
|
Selection; Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent failed to properly classify its employees, resulting in a miscalculation of seniority.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
§ 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 29-6A-6; W. VA. CODE § 18A-4-8g
|
|
Related Cases
|
Howell v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 89-DHS-72 (Nov. 29, 1990); Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997); Hanshaw v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 33-88-130 (Aug. 19, 1988); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993);McDowell County Bd. of Educ. v. Stephens, 191 W.Va. 711, 447 S.E.2d 912 (1994); Fiorini v. W. Va. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 98-DOH-001` (Aug. 17, 1998); Toney v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0533-LinED (Oct. 31, 2008); Conners v. Hardy County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-16-459 (Jan. 14, 2000); Mullins v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 07-33-076 (Oct. 20, 2008); Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W. Va. 297, 465 S.E.2d 399 (1995); Lilly v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-17-330 (Apr. 13, 1998); Hall v. Bd. of Educ. of the County of Mingo., 541 S.E.2d 624, 208 W. Va. 534 (W. Va. 2000)
|
|
Keywords
|
Seniority
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant claims that Respondent lacked authority to award seniority to another employee who had been misclassified. This action placed that employee ahead of Grievant on the seniority list for that classification. Boards of education are obligated to properly classify its employees, and correction of misclassification also requires the granting of seniority credit. Grievant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reclassification of another employee, with the associated seniority, was contrary to law or public policy. This grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again