| First Name | Briana |
| Last Name | Crisp et al. |
| Decision Date | 1/22/2024 |
| Docket Number | 2023-0581-CONS |
| ALJ | LRB |
| Respondent | Logan County Board of Education and Department of Education |
| Employment Type | PROF |
| Job Title | Classroom Teacher |
| Topics | Planning Period |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent improperly denied Grievants their planning periods. |
| Outcome | Granted |
| Statutes | West Virginia Code §§ 18A-4-14, 18A-4-14(a), 18A-4-14(b), 18A-5-1, |
| Related Cases | Smith v Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-22-544 (Nov. 14, 1989); Bailes v. Nicholas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-34-119 (Aug. 39, 1989); Hardman, et al. v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-20-249 (Oct. 19, 1995) Redd v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2009-1477-McDED (May 26, 2011); Stanley v. Department of Tax and Revenue, 614 S.E.2d 712 (2005); Bailey v. Norfolk and Western Railroad Co., 206 W. Va. 654, 527 S.E.2d 516 (1999); Gant v. Waggy, 377 S.E.2d 473 (1989); State v. Bragg, 152 W. Va. 372, 163 S.E.2d 685 (1968); State v. Ilix, 132 W. Va. 516, 54 S.E.2d 198 (1949); Morgan v. Pizzino, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979); Smith v. Lincoln County Board of Education, Docket No. 89-22-544 (Nov. 14, 1989); Bailes v. Nicholas co. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-34-119 (Aug. 30, 1989) |
| Keywords | Planning period, plain meaning, statutory interpretation |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | Respondents appealed 2/20/24, No. 24-ICA-64; Affirmed 12/23/24 |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievants, employed as full-time teachers, protest Respondent LCBOE's practice of mandating that each Grievant repeatedly sacrifice their planning period and cover classes of absent teachers. Applicable law, West Virginia Code § 18A-4-14, requires that a teacher be provided an uninterrupted planning period on each school instructional day which is the length of the usual class period in the school. Respondent is aware of this proviso and despite the explicit directive, chooses to require teachers at Logan High School to give up their planning period. Grievants explicitly express the desire to retain their daily planning periods. Nevertheless, Respondent, despite other feasible alternatives, chose to compel Grievants to sacrifice planning periods for other assigned activity. Respondent contended that absenteeism by teachers compelled it to procure the planning periods of Grievants. Respondent's rebuttal is more pretext than valid justification. Grievants have met their burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were unlawfully deprived of their planning periods. Accordingly, this grievance is GRANTED. |