Robert Matheny, Sheriff v. Lieutenant Gregory Scolapio
807 S.E.2d 278
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Lt. Gregory Scolapio, a Harrison County deputy sheriff and bailiff supervisor, was suspended with pay on Jan. 20, 2015 and later terminated on Feb. 26, 2015 after an internal investigation about his response to a potentially suspicious unattended cooler.
- Scolapio requested and received a pre-disciplinary hearing before a hearing board (Feb. 18, 2015); the board found "reasonable grounds" to terminate him.
- On Mar. 12, 2015 Scolapio appealed to the Harrison County Deputy Sheriffs Civil Service Commission and requested a full de novo evidentiary hearing; the Commission denied a de novo hearing and said it would decide on the hearing-board record.
- Scolapio filed a mandamus petition in circuit court to compel the Commission to provide a de novo hearing; the circuit court granted relief and allowed Sheriff Matheny to intervene.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Scolapio was entitled to a de novo hearing before the Commission and that the Sheriff properly intervened.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheriff could intervene | Scolapio implied the sheriff should not control proceedings; intervention not contested by him on merits | Matheny (Sheriff) argued timely intervention and direct interest because he initiated discipline | Court: Intervention proper — Matheny had a timely, direct, and protectable interest and was an essential party |
| Whether Scolapio was entitled to a de novo evidentiary hearing before the Civil Service Commission after a hearing-board pre-disciplinary proceeding | Scolapio: Statutes and precedent (Burgess) recognize two distinct hearings — a pre-disciplinary hearing and, upon request following discipline, a de novo hearing before the Commission | Sheriff: Statutory language does not expressly grant a de novo hearing on appeal from hearing board; appeals/circuit-court review use the original record | Court: Statute (W. Va. Code §7-14-17) is mandatory — Commission must grant a hearing on request; Burgess and statutory scheme imply two distinct hearings, so Commission must provide de novo hearing |
| Whether pre-disciplinary hearing bars later Commission de novo hearing when discipline already imposed | Sheriff asserted post-discipline procedures may obviate pre-disciplinary board hearing | Scolapio relied on Burgess for availability of both hearings unless statute clearly precludes | Court: Even when discipline already taken, statutory scheme contemplates Commission hearing under §7-14-17; the Legislature’s scheme and prior cases support both types in appropriate circumstances |
| Scope of review in mandamus and appellate standard | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court: Mandamus standard requires clear right, legal duty, and lack of other remedy; appellate review of mandamus and statutory interpretation is de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Staten v. Dean, 195 W. Va. 57 (W. Va. 1995) (mandamus standard and de novo appellate review)
- Burgess v. Moore, 224 W. Va. 291 (W. Va. 2009) (recognizes two distinct hearings: pre-disciplinary hearing before a hearing board and post-disciplinary hearing under §7-14-17)
- State ex rel. Ashley v. Civil Service Comm’n for Deputy Sheriffs of Kanawha Cnty., 183 W. Va. 364 (W. Va. 1990) (statute contemplates a hearing and record when deputy protests removal/suspension)
- Nelson v. W. Va. Pub. Emps. Ins. Bd., 171 W. Va. 445 (W. Va. 1982) (construing "shall" as mandatory absent contrary intent)
- Terry v. Sencindiver, 153 W. Va. 651 (W. Va. 1969) (same principle on mandatory statutory language)