SER Melchiori v. Marshall Co. Board of Education
Annotate this Case_________
No. 21115
_________
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, EX REL.
JEANNE V. MELCHIORI
Petitioner Below, Appellee
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE COUNTY OF MARSHALL,
Respondent Below, Appellant
________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall County
Honorable John Madden, Circuit Judge
Civil Action No. 91-C-358M
REVERSED AND REMANDED
________________________________________________
Submitted: September 8, 1992
Filed: December 18, 1992
Jolyon W. McCamic
McCamic & McCamic
Wheeling, West Virginia
Counsel for Appellee
Howard E. Seufer, Jr.
Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love
Charleston, West Virginia
Counsel for Appellant
JUSTICE WORKMAN delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. When educational personnel lose their positions due to a
reduction in force, both of the alternatives for reassignment
provided in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a (Supp. 1992) should be
considered in conjunction with the reassignment decision.
2. "County boards of education have substantial discretion in
matters relating to the hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion
of school personnel. Nevertheless, this discretion must be
exercised reasonably, in the best interests of the schools, and in
a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious." Syl. Pt. 3,
Dillon v. Board of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986).
3. A county board of education must give weight to the years
of teaching experience a displaced teacher has in given subject
areas when making a decision to reassign the teacher pursuant to
West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a (Supp. 1992).
4. A county board of education must make a showing that its
assignment of a displaced teacher is sound when the teacher is
assigned to instruct in an area for which she is certified but has
not been employed to teach, where an alternative assignment in an
area in which the teacher has previously been employed to teach was
available under the seniority framework.
Workman, Justice:
The Marshall County Board of Education ("Board") appeals from
a decision of the Circuit Court of Marshall County holding that
Jeanne Melchiori, Appellee, could not be transferred as the result
of a reduction in force to a teaching position for which she was
certified but had never been employed to teach. Our examination of
the reduction in force statute, West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a
(Supp. 1992), compels us to conclude that county boards of
education should consider the amount of teaching experience the
employee has in a particular field prior to making reassignments.
Because there is no evidence that the Board's decision to place
Appellee in a teaching position for which she was certified but had
never taught was sound, this case is reversed and remanded with
directions to the Board to reconsider its decision pursuant to the
guidelines outlined in this opinion.
When the Board evaluated its workforce in the spring of 1991
for the purpose of implementing a reduction of its workforce,
thirty-five teaching positions were targeted to be eliminated due
to declining student enrollment and a concomitant reduction in
state aid. The reduction plan included the elimination of one of
seven physical education teaching positions at Moundsville Junior
High School. Since Appellee had less seniority than any other
physical education teacher at the school, her teaching position was
eliminated. Due to her displacement, she was offered a position as
a mental retardation teacher. The parties do not dispute that
Appellee was properly identified as the physical education teacher
whose position should be eliminated as part of the reduction in
force,See footnote 1 nor is there any question raised regarding the calculation
of her seniority. What is at issue in this case is construction of
the reduction in force statute, West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a, as
it relates to reassignment of an employee whose teaching position
has been eliminated.
The reduction in force statute presents two alternatives for
a county board faced with reassignment of a teacher:
Whenever a county board is required to
reduce the number of professional personnel in
its employment, the employee with the least
amount of seniority shall be properly notified
and released from employment pursuant to the
provisions of section two, article two [§ 18A-2-2] of this chapter: . . . Provided,
however, That an employee subject to release
shall be employed in any other professional
position where such employee is certified and
was previously employed or to any lateral area
for which such employee is certified and/or
licensed, if such employee's seniority is
greater than the seniority of any other
employee in that area of certification and/or
licensure.
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a. The teacher at issue in this case is
certified to instruct physical education for grades one through
twelve and mental retardation for grades kindergarten through
twelve. Despite her dual certification, however, Appellee has
taught only physical education in her thirteen years of teaching.
In making its decision to reassign Appellee, the Board relied
upon the following interpretation by the State Superintendent of
Schools ("Superintendent") dated February 22, 1988, which opines
that:
[i]f a professional whose position is going to
be eliminated has certification in more than
one area, he or she has a right to displace,
or 'bump,' only the least senior employee
serving in all of the certificate areas
possessed by the displacing employee. For
example, a 'bumping' employee who has three
certificates may only displace the one
employee in the county who is the most junior
of all the employees serving in the three
areas of certification.
Consistent with this interpretation, the Board considered all the
county employees in the two areas in which appellee was certified
and identified the most junior of those employees to be a mental
retardation teacher. Consequently, the Board offered this mental
retardation position to Appellee.
Appellee initially argued that she should have been given a choice of any of the six physical education and six mental retardation positions held by less senior teachers. The circuit court rejected Appellee's contention that she had the right to choose which teacher to "bump" but found that
The statute in this case mandates that
the released employee be employed in any other
professional position where he had previously
been employed . . . if his seniority is
greater, etc.
In this case, the petitioner [appellee]
had not previously been employed as a teacher
in mental retardation. (Admittedly, she was
certified but not employed).
Therefore, the Board should have placed
her in the position of the least senior
teacher in the field of physical education
within the county system.
. . . .
The language of the statute clearly
indicates that a pre-requisite to a lateral
placement is prior employment in that
position.
Based on its conclusion that prior employment in a field of
certification is a prerequisite to a lateral transfer combined with
the fact that Appellee had never been employed to instruct mental
retardation, the circuit court ordered that Appellee be given the
teaching position held by the least senior physical education
teacher within the county school system. The circuit court's
ruling that West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a prohibits a county board
of education from assigning a displaced teacher to a field in which
the teacher is certified but has never been employed to teach
prompted the Board's appeal to this Court.
Referencing the two alternatives provided by West Virginia
Code § 18A-4-7a for reassignment of a displaced teacher, the Board
observes that the circuit court "without explanation, simply
dropped the second of the two statutory alternatives from
consideration." We agree with the Board that the circuit court's
ruling omits consideration of the alternative to transfer a
displaced teacher "to any lateral area for which such employee is
certified and/or licensed, if such employee's seniority is greater.
. . ." W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a. When educational personnel lose
their positions due to a reduction in force, both of the
alternatives for reassignment provided in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a should be considered in conjunction with the reassignment
decision. The circuit court clearly erred in its application of
the reduction in force statute in failing to consider the second
alternative for reassigning Appellee provided by West Virginia Code
§ 18A-4-7a.
In addition to a reversal of the circuit court's order, the
Board seeks clarification of how teachers subject to a reduction in
force are to be reassigned in view of the statutory alternatives.
While the Board maintains that the State Superintendent of Schools
has repeatedly interpreted the reduction in force statute to
require a county board of education to consider both of the
alternatives listed in West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a when
reassigning a teacher, the "bumping" policy promulgated by the
Superintendent demonstrates the fallacy of this contention.
Application of the Superintendent's policy permits a displaced
teacher to "'bump,' only the least senior employee serving in all
of the certificate areas possessed by the displacing employee." In
the case of any teacher who is certified in multiple fields, this
policy effectively nullifies the Board's discretion to choose
between the statutory alternatives for reassignment. To
illustrate, because Appellee was certified in an alternate area,
the bumping policy which requires that seniority be viewed in terms
of all Appellee's areas of certification prevented the Board from
relying on the first alternative under the reduction in force
statute (i.e. placement in another physical education position).
This case demonstrates how adherence to the reduction in force
policy advocated by the Superintendent usurps the discretion that
was legislatively imposed on county boards of education. This
preemptive effect of the bumping policy, insofar as it arguably
eliminates the exercise of discretion reposed by the Legislature in
the county board, causes concern about the manner in which the
reduction in force statute is being applied.
Appellee charges that reassignment of displaced teachers is
being accomplished in a non-discretionary, mechanical fashion.
Specifically, Appellee complains that the Board merely identifies
the teacher with the least amount of seniority and the displaced
teacher is given that particular position regardless of her actual
qualifications. This selection process, according to Appellee, is
inconsistent with this Court's statements in Dillon v. Board of
Education, 177, W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986). In that
decision, we examined the predecessor statute to 18A-4-7a (W. Va.
Code § 18A-4-8b (1983)) in resolving the roles that qualifications
and seniority play in the filling of vacant teacher positions and
noted that:
[a]lthough we have not had occasion to
consider this provision, it is evident that
the statute's [W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b(a)]
emphasis on the qualifications of applicants
is in furtherance of the strong public policy
favoring the hiring and advancement of
teachers based on their abilities. Public
education is a fundamental constitutional
right in this State, and a prime function of
the State government is to develop a high
quality educational system, an integral part
of which is qualified instructional personnel.
. . . '[T]he State has a legitimate interest
in the quality, integrity and efficiency of
its public schools in furtherance of which it
is not only the responsibility but also the
duty of school administrators to screen those
[in] . . . the teaching profession to see that
they meet this standard.' James v. West
Virginia Board of Regents, 322 F. Supp. 217,
229 (S.D.W.Va.), aff'd, 448 F.2d 785 (4th Cir.
1971).
177 W. Va. at 148, 351 S.E.2d at 61 (some citations omitted).
We have only addressed the proviso language of the reduction
in force statute at issue here on two other occasions. In State ex
rel. Board of Education v. Casey, 176 W. Va. 733, 349 S.E.2d 436
(1986), we held that a county board of education had "a
nondiscretionary duty to notify and release from employment . . .
the secondary principal with the least amount of seniority, and to
place in such secondary principalship the principal whose school is
to be closed." Id. at 737, 349 S.E.2d at 440. That decision is of
little assistance, however, because the reduction in force decision
at issue in Casey involved "a distinct classification of
professional educational personnel, secondary principalships,"
unlike the instant case where the reassignment quandary involves a
teacher with multiple certifications. Id. Casey's only import to
the case at bar is its recognition of "the clear legislative intent
that reductions in force of professional educational personnel be
conducted on the basis of seniority. . . ." Id. The only other
case which deals with the relevant statutory language is Board of
Education v. Bowers, 183 W. Va. 399, 396 S.E.2d 166 (1990). That
decision is equally inapplicable, however, because the issue there
was whether central office administrators accrue seniority separate
and distinct from their overall seniority as professional
personnel.
Resolution of this issue of first impression requires careful
statutory scrutiny to determine whether seniority alone is the only
factor to be considered when reassigning a teacher whose job has
been eliminated due to a reduction in force. Following this
Court's lead in Dillon, the Legislature amended the reduction in
force statute to reflect an emphasis on qualifications in hiring
decisions. With the most recent amendments enacted in 1992, West
Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a begins:
A county board of education shall make
decisions affecting the hiring of professional
personnel other than classroom teachers on the
basis of the applicant with the highest
qualifications. Further, the county board
shall make decisions affecting the hiring of
new classroom teachers on the basis of the
applicant with the highest qualifications. In
judging qualifications, consideration shall be
given to each of the following: Appropriate
certification and/or licensure; amount of
experience relevant to the position or, in the
case of a classroom teaching position, the
amount of teaching experience in the subject
area; the amount of course work and/or degree
level in the relevant field and degree level
generally; academic achievement; relevant
specialized training; past performance
evaluations. . . ; and other measures or
indicators upon which the relative
qualifications of the applicant may fairly be
judged.
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a (Supp. 1992) (emphasis supplied).See footnote 2
The undeniable emphasis on qualifications with regard to the
hiring of new classroom teachers, as well as other professional
personnel, demonstrates that the legislative intent in amending
West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a is both clear and consistent with our
recognition in Dillon that "a prime function of the State
government is to develop a high quality educational system, an
integral part of which is qualified instructional personnel." 177
W. Va. at 148, 351 S.E.2d at 61. Given this laudable objective of
filling our schools with qualified instructors, we cannot fail to
note that the placement of Appellee in a mental retardation
teaching position does not comport with this goal. While we
recognize, as Appellant stresses, that Appellee's certification in
mental retardation is certainly an indication that she has met the
established instructional requirements for this particular subject
area, certification should not be the only factor examined in
reassigning Appellee to a classroom teaching position. If she were
being hired to fill a vacant teaching position, her years of
experience as a physical education teacher would certainly point
toward placement in a physical education slot rather than a mental
retardation opening. Yet, compliance with the policy promulgated
by the Superintendent results in a figurative tying of the Board's
hands such that they cannot place Appellee in a physical education
position.
We recognized in Bowers that "'[i]nterpretations of statutes
by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight
unless clearly erroneous.'" 183 W. Va. at 404, 396 S.E.2d at 171
(quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Smith v. Board of Educ., 176 W. Va. 65, 341 S.E.2d 685 (1985)). Similarly, this Court has ruled that "[c]ounty
boards of education have substantial discretion in matters relating
to the hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion of school
personnel. Nevertheless, this discretion must be exercised
reasonably, in the best interests of the schools, and in a manner
which is not arbitrary and capricious." Dillon, 177 W. Va. at 146,
351 S.E.2d at 59, Syl. Pt. 3. Although the procedure recommended
by the Superintendent is obviously appealing to the school boards
because it provides a clean and easy method by which to effect a
reduction in force, it does not permit the county boards to fully
address the issue of replacement with due consideration not only to
the rights attendant to seniority, but also to the needs of the
system in fulfilling its mandate to provide the best education
possible to its students. While we do not find the "bumping"
policy interpretation of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a to be
clearly erroneous, we do rule that compliance with the reasonable
discretion standard articulated in Dillon requires a county board
of education to do more when reassigning a displaced teacher than
to identify the teacher with the least amount of seniority after
considering all the certificate areas of the displaced teacher.
Recognizing that the statutory emphasis on qualification found
in West Virginia Code 18A-4-7a pertains to hiring, we nonetheless
find it unacceptable to disregard qualification, specifically
classroom teaching experience, when reassigning a teacher displaced
due to a reduction in force. We do not mean to suggest that the
role which seniority plays with regard to reassignment is
unimportant or that seniority be ignored. See W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a. Simply stated, the Superintendent's "bumping" policy which
mandates the forced bumping of the teacher with the least amount of
seniority in view of all of a displaced teacher's areas of
certification does not appear to be a sound policy when scrutinized
against the objective of filling classrooms with the most qualified
instructors. An objective observer would have to conclude that
Appellee is probably more qualified to instruct physical education
given her thirteen years of experience in that field than she is to
teach in the field of mental retardation.
This Court has a duty to oversee that the objective of filling
this State's schools with "qualified instructional personnel" is
met. Dillon, 177 W. Va. at 148, 351 S.E.2d at 61. Since the
Legislature has defined "qualified" partially in terms of teaching
experience, it seems only logical that the years of teaching in a
given subject area should be considered by a board of education
when making a reassignment decision. Accordingly, we hold that a
country board of education must give weight to the years of
teaching experience a displaced employee has in given subject areas
when making a decision to reassign the teacher pursuant to West
Virginia Code § 18A-4-7a.
This Court is not unmindful of the effects that a reassignment
policy which takes qualifications into consideration rather than
seniority alone can create. The domino effect of placing Appellee
in a physical education position appears to be the primary
objection the Board has with introducing qualifications into the
reassignment process. That additional reassignments may occur once
qualifications enter into reassignment decisions and that this
will necessarily cause more headaches to various boards of
education faced with these decisions is certainly a possibility.
The alternative, however, is to subject this State's students to
instructors who are arguably not as qualified to teach in a given
area due to a lack of classroom teaching experience. Reductions in
force are always difficult and there is no flawless system for
making them, which makes all the more crucial that those making
decisions in this context use their thought processes rather than
some simplistic mechanical approach.
We do not attempt through this opinion to annihilate the
Board's "bumping" policy. Instead, we wish to inject into the
reassignment process appropriate consideration of a teacher's
qualification for a position in terms of her classroom experience.
Accordingly, we require that a county board of education make a
showing that its assignment of a displaced teacher is sound when
the teacher is assigned to instruct in an area for which she is
certified but has not been employed to teach, where an alternative
assignment in an area in which the teacher has previously been
employed to teach was available under the seniority framework. If
the Board has sound reasons for adhering to its current policy in
a given case, these reasons can be considered in determining
whether the reassignment decision complies with the standard
established in Dillon which requires the exercise of reasonable
discretion and forbids arbitrary and capricious decisions. See 177
W. Va. at 146, 351 S.E.2d at 59, Syl. Pt. 3.
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the Circuit Court of
Marshall County is reversed and remanded to the Board for
reconsideration of its placement of Appellee in view of this
opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Footnote: 1No argument is made that the analysis of seniority should have been done on a county-wide basis, as opposed to a single school basis, so we do not address that issue at this time. Footnote: 2Prior to Dillon, the only statutory reference to qualification was the statement that "decisions affecting promotion and filling of any classroom teacher's position" shall be made "on the basis of qualifications." W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b (Supp. 1983).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.