Hoffman v. Grove, 15745
| Decision Date | 30 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 15745,15745 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 10 Ed. Law Rep. 858 Ronald E. HOFFMAN v. Mark S. GROVE, Principal, etc., Jeffrey Passe, Supervisor, etc., Shepherd College, et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
"A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist--(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy." Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969).
Jacqueline A. Kinnaman, West Virginia Education Association, Charleston, for petitioner.
April L. Dowler & Richard L. Douglas, Rice, Hannis & Douglas, Martinsburg, Ann V. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents.
The petitioner, Ronald Hoffman, who is a senior in the education program at Shepherd College in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, brings this original mandamus action requesting that this Court compel his reinstatement in his position in Shepherd College's student teaching program. The six respondents include the petitioner's immediate student teaching supervisor, the College's Division of Education Chairman, the College's Academic Dean, the Berkeley County Superintendent of Schools, the principal at the school where petitioner was a student teacher, and the fourth-grade teacher under whom the petitioner was performing his student teaching. The petitioner argues that he was not given prior notice or an opportunity to be heard before his dismissal from the student teaching program and the dismissal therefore violated his constitutional due process rights.
The respondents first raise the procedural point that since there existed a grievance procedure for contesting academic evaluations, 1 of which the petitioner was aware and failed to utilize, he should be denied relief because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The respondents further assert that the petitioner lacked both sufficient liberty and property interests in his continued placement as a student teacher and that formal procedural due process was not required because the dismissal was academic in nature and based on the petitioner's lack of teaching competence and performance.
We decline to address the procedural due process question in this case because the petitioner had available to him an established grievance procedure that would provide him with an opportunity to obtain information as to the reason for the dismissal and to present his reasons for contesting it. 2 Furthermore, it appears that prior to his dismissal from his student teaching position, the petitioner's performance was observed and discussed with him by his student teaching supervisor. The second evaluation, on October 13, 1982, resulted in a conference with the petitioner in which a list of criteria for improvement was developed. The third evaluation took place on October 21, 1982, and in the ensuing conference the petitioner was told that he had not improved his performance and that he still had problems--specifically the improper grading of papers and the misspelling of words on the blackboard. At this conference the petitioner was advised that he would be dismissed from the student teaching program. Subsequently, a letter of dismissal was sent dated October 29, 1982. 3
It must be remembered that the petitioner's dismissal from his student teaching position did not result in his dismissal from the college. He was still eligible to complete the requirements for other academic degrees and could have pursued the degree in education by student teaching at a different school the following semester.
In view of the foregoing, we believe that from a factual standpoint, the petitioner's claim that he was denied due process has no foundation. We again emphasize that we do not address the legal question of whether under all the facts of this case but in the absence of any available grievance procedure, the petitioner would be entitled to some due process procedure. It is sufficient to state that here such procedures were available to him and thus the requested mandamus relief is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Belpre City School Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...supra (706 P.2d), at 899; Maddox, supra. Cf., also, Chyu v. Cty. of Chautauqua (1985), 115 A.D.2d 989, 497 N.Y.S.2d 552; Hoffman v. Grove (W.Va.1983), 301 S.E.2d 810; Grosse Pointe Farms Police Officers Assn. v. Chairman of the Michigan Emp. Relations Comm. (1974), 53 Mich.App. 173, 218 N.W......
-
Reed v. Hansbarger
...W. Va. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 313 S.E.2d 405, (W.Va.1984); Syl. pt. 1, Meadows v. Lewis, 307 S.E.2d 625 (W.Va.1983); Syl., Hoffman v. Grove, 301 S.E.2d 810 (W.Va.1983); Syl. pt. 1, McMellon v. Adkins, 300 S.E.2d 116 (W.Va.1983); Syl. pt. 3, Cooper v. Gwinn, 298 S.E.2d 781 (W.Va.1981); Syl......
-
Hickman v. Epstein
...(3) the absence of another adequate remedy at law. Rogers v. Hechler, 176 W.Va. 713, 348 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1986); Hoffman v. Grove, 171 W.Va. 720, 301 S.E.2d 810, 812 (1983); State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367, 369 The parties dispute whether all the elem......