| First Name | Phillip |
| Last Name | Lewis |
| Decision Date | 6/11/2024 |
| Docket Number | 2024-0551-CU |
| ALJ | RLR |
| Respondent | Concord University |
| Employment Type | HE |
| Job Title | Director of the Career Center |
| Topics | Dismissal--lack of jurisdiction |
| Primary Issues | Whether the Grievance Board has jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims based on protected class. |
| Outcome | Dismissed |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.2 (2018); W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-1(a); WEST VIRGINIA CODE § 6C-2-2(i)(2) (2023) |
| Related Cases | Lewis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-20-554 (May 27, 1998); Lowry v. W. Va. Dep’t of Educ., Docket No. 96-DOE-130 (Dec. 26, 1996); Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-315 (Jan. 25, 1996); Payne v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-26-047 (Nov. 27, 1996); Trickett v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-39-413 (May 8, 1996); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Logan v. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Auth., Docket No. 94-RJA-225 (Nov. 29, 1994) aff’d, Berkeley Cnty. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 94-C-691 (Sept. 11, 1996); Roach v. Reg’l Jail Auth., 198 W. Va. 694, 699, 482 S.E.2d 679, 684 (1996) (citing Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 63, 459 S.E.2d 329, 340 (1995)); Syl. Pt. 3, Wounaris v. W. Va. State Coll., 214 W. Va. 241, 588 S.E.2d 406 (2003) (citing Syllabus, Harless v. First Nat'l Bank of Fairmont, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978)); Syl. Pt. 4, McDaniel v. W. Va. Div. of Labor, 214 W. Va. 719, 591 S.E.2d 277 (2003) |
| Keywords | Jurisdiction |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant served at the will and pleasure of Concord University. As such an employee, Grievant must allege a substantial public policy violation to challenge the termination of his employment. Grievant alleges that he was the victim of age and sex discrimination, both qualifying as substantial public policy violations. The undersigned does not have jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims based on sex or any other protected class status because recent statutory amendments to the Grievance Board statute set out exclusions from the definition of “grievance” that remove such claims from the Grievance Board’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed. |