John Straley v. Putnam County Board of Education
15-1207
| W. Va. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- John Straley, a Putnam County school bus driver, was awarded a full-time route on October 1, 2012 that included an afterschool run during cross-country season; he knew by October 2, 2012 that the afterschool run was part of the route.
- Straley continued driving the route in fall 2013 and, after being denied the chance to bid on certain extra-duty runs, filed a grievance on September 11, 2013 arguing the afterschool run was an "extracurricular" duty improperly folded into his regular contract.
- The BOE and the chief administrator concluded the grievance was untimely under W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1); the Grievance Board dismissed the grievance on July 28, 2014 for being filed outside the 15-day filing window.
- Straley appealed, arguing the BOE’s conduct amounted to a continuing practice, so his grievance was timely filed within 15 days of the most recent occurrence; the circuit court affirmed, holding the BOE’s original assignment was a discrete act producing continuing damages rather than a continuing practice.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court: under the facts, the inclusion of the afterschool run was a single contested act (creating continuing damage), not an ongoing practice that would restart the 15-day filing period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BOE’s inclusion of the afterschool run constituted a "continuing practice" under W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1) so Straley’s grievance was timely | Straley: the BOE’s failure to separate extracurricular duties is a recurring misclassification/continuing practice, so filing within 15 days of the most recent occurrence was timely | BOE: the assignment was a single, discrete act (with continuing effects) not a repeated practice; thus the 15-day clock ran from when Straley knew in Oct. 2012 | Court: Held it was a discrete act causing continuing damage, not a continuing practice; grievance untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Randolph County Board of Education, 195 W. Va. 297, 465 S.E.2d 399 (1995) (misclassification may be treated as continuing practice allowing prospective relief)
- Spahr v. Preston County Board of Education, 182 W. Va. 726, 391 S.E.2d 739 (1990) (distinguishes isolated act producing continuing damage from continuing practice; discovery rule limits back pay)
- Board of Education of the County of Wood v. Airhart, 212 W. Va. 175, 569 S.E.2d 422 (2002) (uniformity/pay disparities can be treated as continuing practice)
- Cahill v. Mercer County Board of Education, 208 W. Va. 177, 539 S.E.2d 437 (2000) (standard of review for Grievance Board conclusions of law reviewed de novo)