Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Angela
|
|
Last Name
|
Morgan
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/26/2026
|
|
Docket Number
|
2025-0002-RalED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Raleigh County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
PROF
|
|
Job Title
|
Aide
|
|
Topics
|
Retaliation, back pay, selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent can prove that the requested relief could not be granted based on an interpretation by the State Superintendent of Schools covering the situation?
Whether Grievant can prove that the interpretation by the State Superintendent of Schools was clearly erroneous?
|
|
Outcome
|
DISMISSED
|
|
Statutes
|
W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19, and West Virginia Code § 18A-2-5(7). West Virginia Code § 18A-2-5(7)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Smith v. Logan County Board of Education, 341 S.E.2d 685 (W.Va. 1985); Billy A. Moore v. Fayette County Board of Education, Docket No. 10-86-137-1.” Thompson v. Kanawha County Board of Education, Docket No. 20-86-366-1 (July 31, 1987). Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009). Dooley v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991).” Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000).
|
|
Keywords
|
Doctors excuse, Paid personal leave, OSE days, unpaid employment status, clearly erroneous, written contract, "interpretation by the state superintendent."
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent, Raleigh County Board of Education, as an Aide when she missed the last workday of the school year. Because Grievant did not have any paid leave remaining, Respondent placed her on unpaid leave and therefore did not pay her for 5 subsequent Outside School Environment (OSE) days. Grievant grieved the non-payment of these days. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Respondent proved that the requested relief could not be granted based on an interpretation by the State Superintendent of Schools covering this situation. Grievant did not prove that this interpretation was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the grievance is DISMISSED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again