Williams-Grant v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
| Docket Number | 21-0117 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2022 |
| Parties | Salena Williams-Grant, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Respondent Below, Respondent |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Salena Williams-Grant, [1] by counsel Christian J. Riddell appeals from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's January 15, 2021, order, that denied petitioner's appeal of the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board's ("Grievance Board") August 2, 2019, decision. Respondent Jefferson County Board of Education, by counsel Tracy B. Eberling, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed 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 order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitioner is a teacher at Jefferson High School and worked for respondent for approximately thirty-seven years. She is also African American and over the age of forty. Throughout her employment, petitioner filed multiple complaints of harassment, hostile work environment, and discrimination. This appeal arises out of two grievances filed by petitioner regarding four incidents that occurred during the 2017-2018 school year when petitioner was supervised by Assistant Principal Mary Beth Group.[2] Respondent gave petitioner two letters of reprimand and a corrective action plan ("CAP") stemming from these incidents.
During the first incident, shortly after the beginning of the school year, petitioner was accused of inappropriately confronting a student in the hallway. Petitioner was verbally counseled about her interaction with that student.
Later, on November 30, 2017, the head technologist for Jefferson County Schools went to petitioner's classroom to check on the status of a technology assistance request previously submitted by petitioner. When the technologist entered the room, petitioner required that he announce his appearance with "good morning class," in the manner that she required of individuals who entered the classroom. Petitioner deemed the technologist's first attempt unacceptable and directed him to say it louder. He complied. Later that day the technologist went to speak to petitioner about the incident. Petitioner was on her duty hour at the time and she responded loudly that he was unprofessional for approaching her during her duty time, and that he should come to speak with her during class time.
That same day, petitioner confronted a parent volunteer after he attempted to enter an activity area restricted to staff. In response, the volunteer obtained a pass to access the area. Later, petitioner reported that bubble-wrap popping and the fragrance worn by the parent volunteer and/or the volunteer's child (who was also present) adversely affected her.
Later that day, petitioner e-mailed Assistant Principal Group to voice her displeasure with the technologist and the parent volunteer. Assistant Principal Group investigated the incidents and determined that petitioner was at fault. On December 12, 2017, Assistant Principal Group met with petitioner to discuss concerns regarding petitioner's conduct and petitioner denied any unprofessional conduct.
On December 13, 2017, Principal Sherry Fitzgerald e-mailed the Jefferson County Superintendent about petitioner's conduct toward the parent volunteer and requested assistance in addressing petitioner's conduct. The following day, Assistant Principal Group e-mailed petitioner to recap their December 12, meeting. Assistant Principal Group directed petitioner to be mindful of her actions toward others, noting that reports had been made that petitioner had behaved unprofessionally. This was not a letter of reprimand and was not placed in petitioner's personnel file. Later that day, petitioner contacted Assistant Principal Group by internal telephone and reportedly addressed Assistant Principal Group in a loud and confrontational tone, such that Assistant Principal Group spoke with Principal Fitzgerald about the call. Assistant Principal Group was counseled to document the call and avoid interaction with petitioner until further notice. Petitioner then sent a lengthy e-mail critical of both Assistant Principal Group and Principal Fitzgerald to Assistant Principal Group with a copy to Principal Fitzgerald, as well as the Chief Human Resources Officer for the county, Assistant Superintendent Patrick Blane, Superintendent Bondy Shay Gibson, and a representative of AFT-WV.
On December 15, 2017, Principal Fitzgerald sought guidance from respondent about petitioner's conduct and the superintendent requested that Lee Ebersole, a central office employee with substantial experience in professional employee performance matters, meet with the principal and assistant principal concerning appropriate next steps. Respondent maintains that the school system often includes Mr. Ebersole in personnel issues to support school administrators and to determine the appropriate steps to support improvement.
On December 22, 2017, Mr. Ebersole met with Principal Fitzgerald and Assistant Principal Group, as well as Bryan Cooley, a representative of the county's human resources department. They concluded that petitioner's conduct should be documented and a CAP be considered to address petitioner's unprofessional conduct. Mr. Ebersole subsequently e-mailed Assistant Principal Group recommending that they explore designing and implementing a CAP, given the nature of petitioner's insubordinate behavior. By letter dated January 10, 2018, Principal Fitzgerald recommended that Superintendent Gibson terminate petitioner or, in the alternative, that petitioner be placed on a CAP to remedy her behavior. Superintendent Gibson chose the issuance of a letter of reprimand based on the Employee Code of Conduct and the implementation of a CAP.
On January 17, 2018, respondent issued petitioner a letter of reprimand and placed her on a CAP, citing areas of concern under Standard 2[3] and Standard 7[4] of Policy 5310. The CAP included the directive that petitioner submit a report on a book entitled "Social and Emotional Learning." Petitioner claims that she was not aware of that letter of reprimand and the CAP until a later e-mail dated February 2, 2018, when she learned that the administration would be conducting classroom observations in her class. In response to the e-mail, petitioner wrote, Assistant Principal Group and Mr. Ebersole conducted a classroom observation and noted concerns about petitioner's teaching under Standard 2. As a result of the observation, petitioner was rated as unsatisfactory in the area of respect. The summative evaluation noted that petitioner On February 21, 2018, petitioner filed her first grievance in which she grieved the letter of reprimand.
On April 13, 2018, Principal Fitzgerald, Assistant Principal Group, and Mr. Ebersole met with petitioner and her representative to discuss the CAP. Petitioner filed a second grievance on April 20, 2018. The CAP was ultimately revised to focus only on Standard 7, professionalism, following a grievance hearing. The CAP established a goal for petitioner to "communicate with parents/guardians and colleagues in a consistently professional manner." It targeted examples of petitioner's conduct and suggested changes. Even after the revision, petitioner refused to sign it. Although petitioner did comply with some of the CAP's substantive requirements, the administration issued a second letter of reprimand after determining that petitioner's submissions under the revised CAP were disrespectful towards Assistant Principal Group and Principal Fitzgerald.
Petitioner's two grievances were ultimately consolidated by the Grievance Board. Petitioner claimed that she is the victim of retaliatory actions and disparate treatment because of her reports of wrongdoing and her race. She also argued that other employees have been placed on focused support plans, rather than corrective action plans.
Petitioner appealed the Grievance Board's decision to the circuit court, claiming that her CAP was initiated in violation of state policy and further arguing that the CAP amounted to harassment, discrimination, and reprisal based on petitioner's age and race.
To continue reading
Request your trial