CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court found that a county board of education cannot make administrative changes without approval.
The Wyoming County Board of Education appealed a Kanawha Circuit Court's decision to affirm the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board's ruling in favor of Mary Dawson, the respondent. The grievance board had granted Dawson's grievance, reinstated her to a modified bus run and an extracurricular bus run as well as awarded her back pay.
Josh Cottle, an attorney who represented the board, said that county boards have limited authority in how they act.
"They cannot act outside of their statutes, which is different from other entities," Cottle told The West Virginia Record. "The only authority they have is what is specifically granted to them. When they discovered a mistake made many years ago, they had to correct that."
Cottle said the Supreme Court ruling reiterated that a county board must correct a mistake whenever they discover it has occurred.
Rebecca A. Roush, who represented the respondent, said she was disappointed with the court's opinion.
"I’m deeply disappointed in the opinion of the court and believe it represents their clear overreach leading to an absurd and unreasonable outcome," Roush told The Record. "However, the decision is on trend for West Virginia leading the way in being an anti-worker state. My client worked in her bus operator position for more than 30 years before the Wyoming County Board of Education decided to give her job to a favored employee."
Roush said the court's ruling left little doubt that the court looked unfavorably on school personnel and was unwilling to protect employee rights granted to them in the state's laws.
"The court’s ruling essentially states that because there was no proof of a contract in the Board’s historical records — despite the fact she worked the job day in and day out for more than three decades — that she did not get the benefit of her statutorily created right of seniority given to her by the West Virginia Legislature."
The primary issues raised by the county board are twofold: First, they argued that the circuit court erroneously concluded that the petitioner failed to prove a legal mistake in modifying the respondent's regular bus run initially. Second, the petitioner contends that the circuit court was wrong in holding them bound by a legal mistake made by one of its employees, preventing them from correcting it.
Dawson has been employed as a bus driver for the petitioner since 1980. Over the years, she had a regular bus run that transported both elementary and high school students. In 1983, she entered into a continuing contract for her regular run. In 1985, she bid on and began a vocational bus run, which did not initially conflict with her regular run.
Changes in school start times in 1987 or 1988 caused an overlap between the respondent's regular run and the vocational run, making it impossible for her to do both. An unknown employee of the petitioner's administrative office modified the respondent's regular run without approval from the board, removing the morning elementary portion. This modification allowed the respondent to continue transporting students on the vocational run while another driver was assigned to handle the elementary students. This modification went unchallenged for 30 years.
In March 2017, the petitioner informed the respondent that the vocational run was being eliminated and all vocational runs were rebid with new terms for the 2017-2018 school year. An investigation by the petitioner's Director of Safety and Transportation revealed that the modification made to the respondent's regular run in 1987 or 1988 was not approved by the board. The respondent was initially assigned the vocational run for the 2017-2018 school year but was later reassigned to her original arrangement when the mistake was discovered.
The respondent filed a grievance, arguing that the petitioner violated statutes in making the bus route change and awarding the vocational run to a less senior employee. The petitioner argued that the modification of the respondent's regular run in 1987 or 1988 was an unauthorized mistake that had to be corrected. The grievance board sided with the respondent, finding the petitioner's action in restoring the respondent's regular bus run to its original parameters as unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.
The circuit court affirmed the grievance board's decision, prompting the petitioner's appeal.
The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in affirming the grievance board. The decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for an order denying the grievance.
"Both the grievance board and the circuit court were clearly wrong in their determinations," Justice Tim Armstead wrote in the majority opinion. "As such, we find that the circuit court should have reversed the grievance board, found that Respondent did not meet her burden of proof, and ordered dismissal of the grievance."
The court reversed the March 4, 2022, order of the lower court and directed the circuit court to order the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board to deny the grievance.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 22-0234