Database Search Result Details

First Name Seth
Last Name Vaughn
Decision Date 7/20/2026
Docket Number 2026-0282-MerED
ALJ KDB
Respondent Mercer County Board of Education
Employment Type PROF
Job Title itinerant music teacher
Topics termination
Primary Issues (1) Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant for off duty activity on his personal social media account? (2) Whether Grievant's social media activity on a matter of public concern was protected speech under the First Amendment right of free speech? (3) Whether Grievant's social media activity became the subject of notoriety and irreparably impaired Grievant's ability to discharge job duties?
Outcome DENIED
Statutes W. Va. Code 18A-2, W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3. W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-162-4 . W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 126-99-1.1, U.S. CONST. AMEND. I
Related Cases Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993). Syllabus Point 2, Golden v. Bd. of Educ., 169 W. Va. 63, 285 S.E.2d 665 (1981).” Syl. Pt. 2, Woo v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., 202 W. Va. 409, 413 (1998). Durstein v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-1955-CabED (Sept. 22, 2017). Bagley v. City of Columbia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24097 (D.S.C. 9/3/2024) pages 19-23. Alderman v. Pocahontas Cty. Bd. of Educ., 223 W. Va. 431, 443, 675 S.E.2d 907, 919 (2009). Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 8-9, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2700 (1990) Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 151-152 (1983). 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). Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 300 (4th Cir. 1992), (quoting Jurgensen v. Fairfax Cnty., Va., 745 F.2d 868, 879 (4th Cir. 1984)).” Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd./Shepherd Coll., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) (per curiam). Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-01-394 (Jan. 31, 1995); Domingues v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-10-341(Jan. 28, 2005); Breck v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2011-1542-PutED (February 13, 2012); Robinette v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-1437-BooED (Feb. 10, 2015 Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff'd, Sexton v. Marshall University, 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989). 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)). Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996).” 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). In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996).’” Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam) In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996).’” Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam) ." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 388, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992); see also Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08, 89 S. Ct. 1399, 22 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1969).” State v. Calvert, No. 15-0195, 2016 W. Va. LEXIS 457, at 10-11 (June 3, 2016) Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 151-152 (1983). Waite v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 161 W. Va. 154, 241 S.E.2d 164 (1977), overruled in part on other grounds by W. Va. Dep't of Educ. v. McGraw, 239 W. Va. 192, 201, 800 S.E.2d 230, 239 (2017). “U.S. CONST. AMEND. I. 8 W. VA. CONST. ART III, § 3-7,Syl. pt. 3, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W. Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1984). Alderman, 223 W. Va. 431, 441. ’ Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 [84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487] (1985).” Syl. Pt. 3, Fraley v. Civil Service Commission, 177 W.Va. 729, 356 S.E.2d 483 (1987).
Keywords rational nexus, social media, fitness, irreparable damage, freedom of speech, code of conduct, job duties, safe and supportive learning environment, off duty, loss of trust, inappropriate conversations suspension, public concern, Facebook. First Amendment, protected speech, notoriety
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed as an itinerant music teacher at Oakvale Elementary and Princeton Middle School. During his off-duty hours, Grievant made a social media post on his personal Facebook account which appeared to condone violence. The post became the subject of significant notoriety when shared by other Facebook users. Respondent determined that Grievant’s social media activity violated the employee code of conduct and terminated his employment. Grievant argued his social media post was protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Respondent proved that Grievant’s post created notoriety and led to irreparable damage to his fitness for employment as an effective teacher. Therefore, Respondent proved there was a rational nexus between Grievant’s conduct away from work and his job duties and there was significant untainted notoriety to support Grievant’s dismissal. Although related to a matter of public concern, Respondent proved that Grievant’s activity was not entitled to free speech protection and Respondent’s interests in a safe and supportive learning environment outweigh Grievant’s free speech interest. Grievant failed to prove that the notoriety was caused by Respondent. Therefore, Grievant failed to prove the disMissal was improper due to violation of his due process or First Amendment right of free speech. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again