Hanlon v. Logan County Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1997
• Docket Number: No. 23957,23957
• Citation: 201 W.Va. 305,496 S.E.2d 447
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: , 124 Ed. Law Rep. 446 David P. HANLON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Tim Murphy, Defendants Below, Appellees.

Page 447

496 S.E.2d 447

201 W.Va. 305, 124 Ed. Law Rep. 446

David P. HANLON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Tim Murphy, Defendants Below, Appellees.

No. 23957.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 16, 1997.

Decided Nov. 20, 1997.

[201 W.Va. 306] Syllabus by the Court

1. " 'A final order of the hearing examiner for the West Virginia Educational Employees Grievance Board, made pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18-29-1, et seq. [ (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994) ],

], [201 W.Va. 307] and based upon findings of fact, should not be reversed unless clearly wrong.' Syllabus Point 1,Randolph County Board of Education v. Scalia, 182 W.Va. 289, 387 S.E.2d 524 (1989)." Syllabus point 1, Martin v. Randolph County Board of Education, 195 W.Va. 297, 465 S.E.2d 399 (1995)

2. W.Va.Code § 18A-4-16 (1982) (Repl.Vol.1993) does not preclude a county board of education from entering into an extracurricular coaching assignment agreement with an individual employed by another county's board of education provided both county boards of education agree to the proposed arrangement.

3. W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994) makes mandatory the time periods within which grievances by educational employees must be filed, heard, and decided. If a grievance evaluator does not comply with the hearing and decision time periods, and his/her inaction does not come within one of the enumerated statutory exceptions, "the grievant shall prevail by default." W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994).

4. In order to benefit from the "relief by default" provisions contained in W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994), a grieved employee or his/her representative must raise the "relief by default" issue during the grievance proceedings as soon as the employee or his/her representative becomes aware of such default.

Basil R. Legg, Jr., Johnson, Simmerman & Broughton, Clarksburg, for Appellant.

DAVIS, Justice:

The plaintiff below and appellant herein, David P. Hanlon [hereinafter Hanlon], appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County entered July 8, 1996. Ruling in favor of the defendants below and appellees herein, the Logan County Board of Education [hereinafter LCBOE or Board] and Tim Murphy [hereinafter Murphy], the circuit court affirmed a prior decision of the Administrative Law Judge [hereinafter ALJ] for the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board. In her December 29, 1994, order, the ALJ determined that the Board had not violated the provisions of W.Va.Code § 18A-3-2a(4) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1993) in selecting Murphy, instead of Hanlon, for the position of head coach of boys' basketball at Logan High School. ¹ The ALJ concluded further that the default language contained in W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994) did not apply to the facts of this case. ² Upon a review of the appellant's brief, ³ the record, and the relevant authorities, we are inclined to agree with the ruling of the circuit court and affirm that court's decision.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1993, David Hanlon was the assistant boys' basketball coach at Logan High School.

[201 W.Va. 308] In March, 1993, the then-head boys' basketball coach at Logan High School resigned his position. As a result, Logan County Schools posted the Logan High School head basketball coaching position. Rather than directly accepting the applications himself, the Assistant Superintendent of Logan County Schools in charge of athletics [hereinafter Assistant Superintendent], with the approval of the Superintendent of Logan County Schools [hereinafter Superintendent], appointed a six-member hiring committee. The committee was comprised of the Assistant Superintendent in charge of athletics, the principal of Logan High School, the athletic director of Logan High School, and three community persons. ⁴

Upon learning of the vacant coaching position, Hanlon, an employee of the Logan County Board of Education, ⁵ submitted his application to the hiring committee. Tim Murphy, an employee of the Upshur County Board of Education, ⁶ also applied for the position. After receiving approximately ten or twelve applications, the hiring committee interviewed all of the applicants and narrowed the field to three top choices. Murphy was among the top three candidates; Hanlon was not one of the committee's top selections. Each of the remaining three applicants was interviewed a second time, and the committee ultimately voted to offer Murphy the coaching position. The Superintendent then called several individuals to verify Murphy's credentials and, upon confirming the committee's assessment of Murphy's qualifications, directed the Assistant Superintendent to offer the head coach position to Murphy. At the time this position was offered to Murphy, no full-time teaching positions were available in Logan County. Shortly thereafter, though, the Board determined that additional itinerant teachers would be needed to ensure that teachers received their required planning periods. As a result, Murphy applied for a position as an itinerant physical education [hereinafter PE] instructor.

During the July 8, 1993, meeting of the Logan County Board of Education, the Board ratified the action of the State Superintendent of Schools ⁷ of hiring Murphy as an itinerant PE teacher and as the head boys' basketball coach at Logan High School. The record reflects that Murphy signed his Logan County teaching contract on July 9, 1993, and that he accepted the extracurricular assignment as head boys' basketball coach on July 29, 1993.

Having not been selected for the head boys' basketball coaching position, Hanlon filed a grievance claiming that Murphy's hiring had been improper. On August 19, 1993, the principal of Logan High School denied Hanlon's grievance stating "[t]he committee appointed for the selection process did not recommend you as one of the two final candidates Hanlon then appealed directly to Level IV ¹³ on December 3, 1993. After holding several hearings, the Administrative Law Judge for the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board rendered a decision on December 29, 1994. The ALJ initially declined to address Hanlon's arguments regarding W.Va.Code § 18A-4-16 (1982) (Repl.Vol.1993) ¹⁴ finding reliance on this statutory provision misplaced in this case. Similarly, the ALJ determined that the facts did not support a finding that Hanlon should prevail by default pursuant to W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994). ¹⁵

                [201 W.Va. 309] for said position, 8 after interviewing all candidates."   Thereafter, on August 27, 1993, Hanlon appealed to Level II.  Although the Level II hearing was initially scheduled for September 7, 1993, it was not held until October 7, 1993. 9  By decision dated November 30, 1993, 10 the Assistant Superintendent 11 rejected Hanlon's arguments that "he should have been awarded the Coaching position for the Logan High School basketball team [pursuant to W.Va.Code § 18A-4-7a 12 because] he is the most qualified candidate."   In denying Hanlon's grievance, the Assistant Superintendent found that "their [sic] is no evidence of arbitrariness or capriciousness in the decision to hire Mr. Murphy."
                

Denying Hanlon's grievance, the ALJ determined that the Logan County LCBOE did not violate W.Va.Code § 18A-3-2a(4) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1993) ¹⁶ in selecting Murphy for the head basketball coach position instead of Hanlon. In this manner, the ALJ noted that, in hiring Murphy for the coaching position, the LCBOE did not hire an uncertified non-employee as contended by Hanlon because "Mr. Murphy qualified for certification, possessed a teaching certificate, and was an employee of Buckhannon-Upshur High School at the time this position was offered to him." The ALJ further concluded that the statute had not been violated because "although Mr. Murphy was offered the coaching position before he was selected for the itinerant PE position, he was hired for both positions at the same board meeting. Thus, the Board did not hire a non-employee as a coach but hired an employee." In sum Hanlon then appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. By order dated July 8, 1996, the circuit court "conclude[d] that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was neither clearly wrong nor arbitrary or capricious, and that the questions of law were decided correctly.... Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be and the same is hereby affirmed." It is from this ruling of the circuit court that Hanlon appeals to this Court. ¹⁷

[201 W.Va. 310] the ALJ was unable to find that either the hiring committee or the Superintendent had "acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.... Although reasonable minds may differ, and perhaps frequently do when it comes to selecting coaches, the decision to hire Mr. Murphy was not an abuse of discretion."

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal to this Court, Hanlon presents three arguments in support of his request that we overturn the decision of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. First, he argues that Murphy's hiring violated W.Va.Code § 18A-4-16 (1982) (Repl.Vol.1993) ¹⁸ in that Murphy was not an employee of the Logan County Board of Education at the time he was hired for the coaching position. Second, Hanlon contends that the hiring was in contravention of W.Va.Code § 18A-3-2a(4) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1993) ¹⁹ because Hanlon, a qualified applicant employed by the hiring board of education, applied for the job. Finally, Hanlon submits that, in any event, he is entitled to a default judgment pursuant to W.Va.Code § 18-29-3(a) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994) ²⁰ because the LCBOE did not adhere to the time requirements contained in W.Va.Code § 18-29-4(b) (1992) (Repl.Vol.1994). ²¹ After a discussion of the applicable standard of review, we will address the merits of Hanlon's contentions.

A. Standard of Review

In determining whether a circuit...