Subramani v. W. Va. Univ. Bd. of Governors, 14-0924
| Decision Date | 20 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-0924,14-0924 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | K. Subramani Plaintiff Below, Petitioner v. West Virginia University Board of Governors, Michele G. Wheatley, C.B. Wilson, Eugene V. Cilento, and Brian Woerner Defendants Below, Respondents |
Petitioner K. Subramani, by counsel Jacques R. Williams, appeals the Circuit Court of Monongalia County's August 14, 2014, order granting respondents' motion to dismiss. Respondents, West Virginia University Board of Governors ("WVBOG"), Michele G. Wheatley, C. B. Wilson, Eugene V. Cilento, and Brian Woerner,1 by counsel Susan Deniker, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner submitted a reply.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
At all times relevant, petitioner was employed as an associate professor in the Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at West Virginia University's ("WVU") Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources ("CEMR"). Petitioner was hired by WVU in August of 2000, as an assistant professor. In 2006, he was promoted to associate professor and granted tenure.
During the 2009-10 annual review process, petitioner made a formal request for promotion to the rank of full professor. As established in WVU's Policies and Procedures for Annual Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure 2009-10 ("WVU guidelines"), considerations for an award of promotion are addressed through a multi-level evaluation process. The processbegins with a review of the request by a department committee of faculty colleagues. A review of the request is then completed by the department chair, following which the request is reviewed by a committee of faculty from the various departments of the college. Finally, the request is reviewed by the dean of the college. In petitioner's case, all four levels of review recommended that his application for promotion to full professor be denied.
WVU guidelines provided that "[i]n order to be recommended for a promotion, a tenured or tenure-track faculty member normally will be expected to demonstrate significant contributions in two of the following areas: teaching in the classroom or other setting, research[,] and service." These guidelines define "significant contributions" as "those which meet or exceed those of peers recently ... achieving similar promotion and/or tenure who are respected for their contributions in teaching at [WVU]."
Similarly, the WVU CEMR Criteria for Promotion and Tenure required that, in order to qualify for promotion to the rank of professor, a candidate must show a sustained record of significant contributions in teaching and research. Evidence of significant contributions in teaching "include[d] documentation of effective instruction as measured by student feedback." During the review of petitioner's application for promotion to full professor, petitioner's department chair concluded that petitioner's teaching accomplishments, since his last promotion, did not compare favorably with recently promoted colleagues within the department and college."2
On May 19, 2010, petitioner filed a grievance against the WVUBOG with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board,3 in which he alleged that respondents violated WVU's policies in failing to promote him to the rank of full professor. Specifically, petitioner argued that respondents improperly used student evaluations to rate his teaching performance. Petitioner further asserted that he was the victim of reprisal, discrimination, and harassment because he filed prior grievances concerning his employment at WVU.
Following a level one hearing, petitioner's grievance was denied. Petitioner appealed the denial and requested a level two mediation. The parties were unable to resolve the grievance at mediation, and petitioner thereafter requested a level three hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). The level three hearing was conducted over six days in November of 2010, and concluded on March 18, 2011.
On July 22, 2011, the ALJ denied petitioner's grievance, finding that petitioner's application for promotion was properly reviewed using the same evaluative tools and measures utilized for all other members in his department. The ALJ concluded that petitioner's claims of reprisal, harassment, and discrimination were without merit. Petitioner timely appealed the ALJ's decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On March 31, 2013, the circuit court denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the ALJ's decision. Petitioner did not appeal the circuit court's order to this Court.
On August 9, 2010, petitioner filed a second grievance against the WVUBOG. In this grievance, petitioner alleged that his department chair failed to properly address a number of petitioner's concerns relating to his evaluations and his promotion and tenure file. In addition, petitioner alleged that he was improperly denied an application for a sabbatical leave of absence. On October 18, 2011, a level one hearing was held before the chief grievance administrator. At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent moved to dismiss petitioner's grievance arguing that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The chief grievance administrator granted respondent's motion. Petitioner filed an appeal of the level one decision, and a level two mediation was held. After an unsuccessful mediation, petitioner requested a level three hearing. The day before the scheduled hearing, petitioner voluntarily withdrew his grievance.
On May 20, 2011, petitioner filed a third grievance. This grievance related to a letter that petitioner's department chair placed in petitioner's promotion and tenure file, which stated, in part:
You have elected to challenge the decision of the university with respect to your request for promotion during the 2009-2010 review cycle. As a result of this ongoing challenge, your complete personnel file is in the Provost's office and not available for the present review cycle. After consulting with the Provost's office I have placed only items from the 2010 calendar year into your file. In completing its review for the current cycle, the committee should consider your accomplishments from the 2010 calendar year. The committee should also not draw any conclusions on the outcome of the ongoing proceedings until those proceedings have been completed. .... You have a right to respond to this note and any other items in your file and place the response into your personnel file.
As a result of the placement of this letter in his file, petitioner asserted claims of breach of confidentiality, deprivation of due process, discrimination, harassment, and reprisal. A level one hearing was held on June 9, 2011. Petitioner's grievance was denied by decision issued July 29, 2011, in which the chief grievance administrator found that: (1) the letter placed in petitioner's file did not harm petitioner; (2) the evaluation of petitioner's teaching and service contributions was not arbitrary and capricious; and (3) petitioner had not been the victim ofharassment, discrimination, or reprisal. Petitioner appealed this decision, and the parties participated in a level two mediation. The mediation was unsuccessful. Petitioner then requested a level three hearing, which was held before an ALJ over two days in December of 2012.
On March 15, 2013, the ALJ issued a ruling denying petitioner's grievance, finding that petitioner's application for promotion had been reviewed using the same evaluative tools and measures utilized for all other members in his department, and thus, was a proper review. The ALJ further ruled that petitioner's claims for breach of confidentiality, reprisal, harassment, and discrimination were without merit.4 Petitioner did not appeal the ALJ's March 15, 2013, decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
On November 15, 2011, petitioner filed a four count complaint against respondents in Monongalia County Circuit Court. In his complaint, petitioner alleged: (1) breach of contract (for respondents' alleged failure to review petitioner's request for promotion in accordance with WVU's policies and procedures); (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (for respondents' alleged failure to provide petitioner with steps to correct his job performance); (3) violation of due process (for placement of documents in petitioner's promotion and tenure file without his knowledge); and (4) violation of West Virginia Code § 6C-2-1 (). In answer to petitioner's complaint, respondents filed a motion to dismiss. On June 22, 2012, the circuit court granted respondents' motion to dismiss, finding that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's claims because petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Petitioner did not appeal the circuit court's dismissal of his claims to this Court.
On January 15, 2014, petitioner filed another civil action in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County against respondents. In his two count complaint, petitioner alleged: (1) a violation of due process for the placement of certain documents in his faculty file, and for the manner in which he was evaluated in the 2009-10 promotion cycle; and (2) a violation of the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board Statute, West Virginia Code §§ 6C-2-1 through -8, (alleging that petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial