Cruciotti v. McNeel
| Decision Date | 20 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 19083,19083 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 62 Ed. Law Rep. 1224 Richard CRUCIOTTI, v. Tom McNEEL, West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools; The Board of Education of Ohio County; and Henry Marockie, Superintendent of Ohio County Schools. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "School personnel regulations and laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the employee." Syl. pt. 1, Morgan v. Pizzino, 163 W. Va. 454, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979).
2. Pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982], the duties of an athletic trainer are
within the definition of "extracurricular duties," and, therefore, the assignment of a teacher to such duties shall be made only by mutual agreement of the teacher and the superintendent, or designated representative. A teacher's contract of employment shall be separate from an agreement to perform duties as an athletic trainer and such contract shall not be conditioned upon the teacher's acceptance or continuance of such extracurricular assignment as athletic trainer, which has been proposed by the superintendent, a designated representative, or the board of education.
3. "If a motion for judgment or for a new trial is not timely made under Rule 50(b), R.C.P., or Rule 59(b), R.C.P., a motion may be considered under Rule 60(b) if it states grounds sufficient for relief thereunder." Syl., Jones, Inc. v. W.A. Wiedebusch Plumbing & Heating Co., 157 W.Va. 273, 201 S.E.2d 257 (1973).
4. "Inasmuch as courts favor the adjudication of cases on their merits, Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure should be given a liberal construction." Syl. pt. 2, Hamilton Watch Co. v. Atlas Container, Inc., 156 W.Va. 52, 190 S.E.2d 779 (1972).
5. "Rule 60(b) [of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure ] should be liberally construed to accomplish justice[.]" Kelly v. Belcher, 155 W.Va. 757, 773, 187 S.E.2d 617, 626 (1972).
Jeremy C. McCamic, McCamic & McCamic, Wheeling, for WV State Superintendent of Schools et al.
Diana H. Crutchfield, Moundsville, for Richard Cruciotti.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Tom McNeel, state superintendent of schools, the Board of Education of Ohio County (the Board), and Henry Marockie, superintendent of Ohio County Schools. 1 The appellee is Richard Cruciotti. The appellants are aggrieved by the February 9, 1989 order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County.
In July, 1984, the Board posted an announcement of employment vacancies. Among other positions of employment, such announcement included the following: This position was available at Triadelphia Junior High School.
Due to an apparent unavailability of qualified applicants, however, the Board amended the announcement as follows: "Physical Education Teacher and Athletic Trainer."
The appellee, by two letters, expressed his desire to be considered for the position of physical education teacher, but not the position of athletic trainer. Another applicant was hired for the position.
The appellee filed a grievance with the Board, alleging that the job posting constituted an "improper joinder" of employment positions, in violation of W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982]. 2
Following a hearing before the Board, the appellee's grievance was denied by the appropriate grievance response procedures.
The state superintendent upheld the Board's ruling.
The appellee then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Ohio County. A hearing was held on August 15, 1986. On September 23, 1986, the circuit court issued an opinion and order, holding that there was no "improper joinder" of positions, and, essentially, upholding the state superintendent's ruling.
On December 8, 1986, the appellee moved for relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Such motion was granted and following hearings on the matter, the circuit court issued another opinion and order on February 9, 1989, this time holding that the Board's posting violated W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982], as an "improper joinder." It is this order of the circuit court which is appealed in this case.
The issue for which we agreed to consider this appeal is whether the position of athletic trainer is "extracurricular" so as to require a separate contract of employment pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982]. 4
W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16(1) [1982] provides:
(1) The assignment of teachers and service personnel to extracurricular assignments shall be made only by mutual agreement of the employee and the superintendent, or designated representative, subject to board approval. Extracurricular duties shall mean, but not be limited to, any activities that occur at times other than regularly scheduled working hours, which include the instructing, coaching, chaperoning, escorting, providing support services or caring for the needs of students, and which occur on a regularly scheduled basis.
(emphasis supplied)
Subsections (2) and (3) of W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982] provide for a mutual agreement between the teacher and the superintendent, or a designated representative, regarding extracurricular assignments and require that such agreement be in writing.
Subsection (4) of W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982] provides:
(4) An employee's contract of employment shall be separate from the extracurricular assignment agreement provided for in this section and shall not be conditioned upon the employee's acceptance or continuance of any extracurricular assignment proposed by the superintendent, a designated representative, or the board.
(emphasis supplied)
The 1984-85 salary schedule for coaches in Ohio County Schools, which is in the record in this case, includes the position of athletic trainer. The salary for the athletic trainer position at the junior high level, as set forth in that schedule, is $265 per year. The Board contends that because the annual salary is so low, no one will apply for the position. Therefore, the Board maintains that the athletic trainer position is not an extracurricular position, but, rather, is a professional service, tantamount to a teaching position.
Among other reasons, the Board points out that Policy No. 5112 of the Ohio County Board of Education 5 requires that: "Athletic trainers shall come under the definition of professional educators as specified in § 18-1-1 and § 18A-1-1 of the School Laws of West Virginia." This reference to "professional educator" is to the definition of that term, contained in W.Va.Code, 18A-1-1 [1981]. Specifically, W.Va.Code, 18A-1-1(c) provides, in part, that " 'Professional educator' shall be synonymous with and shall have the same meaning as 'teacher' as defined in [ W.Va.Code, 18-1-1]." W.Va.Code, 18-1-1(g) [1980] provides:
(g) 'Teacher' shall mean teacher, supervisor, principal, superintendent, public school librarian; registered professional nurse, licensed by the West Virginia board of examiners for registered professional nurses and employed by a county board of education, who has a baccalaureate degree; or any other person regularly employed for instructional purposes in a public school in this state[.]
Moreover, the Board argues that because some of the duties of an athletic trainer take place during the regular school day, it is not a "true extracurricular position."
We have not had occasion to apply the provisions of W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982] to the type of factual situation presented in this case. 6
As set forth previously in this opinion, W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16(1) [1982] defines "extracurricular duties" as meaning, "but not ... limited to, any activities that occur at times other than regularly scheduled working hours, which include the instructing, coaching, chaperoning, escorting, providing support services or caring for the needs of students, and which occur on a regularly scheduled basis." (emphasis supplied)
The evidence at the hearings below lead us to believe that the circuit court did not commit error in holding that the position of athletic trainer is extracurricular so as to require a separate contract of employment pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18A-4-16 [1982].
The superintendent of Ohio County schools testified that at Wheeling Park, a high school with 1700 students in Ohio County, a full-time athletic trainer is needed. There, the athletic trainer teaches one-half of the regular school day and performs athletic training duties after regular school day hours. At Triadelphia Junior High School, however, because there are only 400-500 students, a full-time athletic trainer is not needed. The superintendent also submitted a list of documents indicating that, with the exception of one junior high school, all Ohio County secondary schools combine a teaching position with athletic trainer in posting job announcements.
The principal of Triadelphia Junior High School, John Mattern, testified that while some of the athletic trainer's duties take place during regular school day hours, such as tending to injuries occurring at football practice, most of the athletic trainer's duties take place after regular school day hours.
Owens Brown, a consultant with the West Virginia Education Association, testified that there is much controversy surrounding the duties of an athletic trainer as it pertains to the issue in this case, and that it is treated differently throughout the state.
Mr. Brown also testified about a case in which he was involved in his capacity as a consultant with the West Virginia Education Association. Most of this testimony concerned a situation at another Ohio County school where a science teacher, who also served as an athletic trainer, was allowed to be released from her athletic training duties due to too much stress, but was permitted to continue teaching science, thus, indicating that the duties of an athletic trainer are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordache Enterprises v. NAT. UNION FIRE INS.
...6, in part, Toler, supra. This is true especially, but not exclusively, in the context of default judgments. See Cruciotti v. McNeel, 183 W.Va. 424, 396 S.E.2d 191 (1990). Nevertheless, "[a] circuit court is not required to grant a Rule 60(b) motion unless a moving party can satisfy one of ......
-
State ex rel. St. Clair v. Howard
...472, 513 S.E.2d 692, 699 (1998) (citing Syl. Pt. 6, in part, Toler , 157 W. Va. at 778, 204 S.E.2d at 86 ); Cruciotti v. McNeel , 183 W. Va. 424, 430, 396 S.E.2d 191,197 (1990) (citing Kelly , 155 W. Va. at 773, 187 S.E.2d at 626 ). Husband's first challenge to the circuit court's ruling is......
-
State ex rel. Boner v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ.
...construed in favor of the employee.' Syl. pt. 1, Morgan v. Pizzino, 163 W.Va. 454, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979)." Syl. Pt. 1, Cruciotti v. McNeel, 183 W.Va. 424, 396 S.E.2d 191 (1990). 2. A board of education is prohibited from abolishing the positions of full-time homebound teachers and replacing......
-
Hanlon v. Logan County Bd. of Educ.
...assignment is separate and apart from the employee's employment contract, see, e.g., Syl. pt. 2, in part, Cruciotti v. McNeel, 183 W.Va. 424, 396 S.E.2d 191 (1990); Smith v. Board of Educ. of County of Logan, 176 W.Va. 65, 67, 341 S.E.2d 685, 686 (1985), the statute does not specifically di......