Joseph Bruce Ragione v. Board of Education of Preston County
17-0037
| W. Va. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Ragione was hired by Preston County Board of Education in 2012 as a mechanic with pay based on credit for 28 years’ prior work experience, yielding about $35,000/year.
- The Board later rescinded the 28-year private-sector experience credit effective July 1, 2014, reducing Ragione’s pay by about $11,000/year.
- Ragione pursued the Board’s internal grievance process; the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board (Level III) denied relief in a February 12, 2016 decision, finding the prior credit grant was an ultra vires act by the superintendent.
- Instead of appealing the Grievance Board decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Ragione filed a civil complaint in Preston County circuit court asserting breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.
- The Board moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the circuit court granted the motion, dismissing the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) and dismissing the civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)).
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Ragione’s contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims fall within the Grievance Board’s jurisdiction and required exhaustion; conspiracy claim properly dismissed because employees cannot conspire with their corporate employer when acting in official capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ragione had to appeal the Grievance Board Level III decision before filing a civil suit | "May" in W. Va. Code § 6C-2-5 is permissive; Ragione contends appeal is not mandatory and he could sue without appealing | Claims fall within Grievance Board jurisdiction; failure to appeal Level III means failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held appeal/exhaustion required; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) affirmed |
| Whether Ragione’s breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and unjust enrichment claims were precluded by the grievance process | These claims could proceed in circuit court without further appeal | These claims are grievances (compensation/terms/conditions) and fall under W. Va. Code § 6C-2 jurisdiction | Court held these claims are within Grievance Board’s jurisdiction and must be exhausted before civil suit |
| Whether Weimer permits filing civil actions without exhausting grievance appeals | Relies on Weimer holding "may" is permissive and grievance is not mandatory preclusion for civil claims | Distinguishes Weimer: that case involved Human Rights Act claims and different procedures; not applicable here | Court rejected Ragione’s reliance on Weimer; distinguished cases where HR Act claims allowed parallel civil suits |
| Whether employees can conspire with their employer (civil conspiracy claim) | Ragione named Board employees as conspirators with the Board | Employer and employees acting in official capacity cannot conspire with each other as a matter of law | Court dismissed conspiracy claim under Rule 12(b)(6) per Cook v. Hecks, Inc. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weimer v. Sanders, 232 W. Va. 367, 752 S.E.2d 398 (2015) (distinguishes grievance exhaustion where plaintiff’s claim invokes Human Rights Act and grievance procedures differ)
- Vest v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Nicholas, 193 W. Va. 222, 455 S.E.2d 781 (1995) (a civil action under the Human Rights Act is not precluded by a prior grievance decision arising from same facts)
- Cook v. Hecks, Inc., 176 W. Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986) (a corporation cannot conspire with its agents/employees acting in official capacities)
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995) (standard that appellate review of a circuit court’s dismissal on motion is de novo)