DIANA RANDOLPH,
Grievant,
v.
DOCKET NO. 00-40-012
PUTNAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Grievant, Diana Randolph, filed a grievance against her employer, the Putnam
County Board of Education (Board) on November 3, 1999, as follows:
Violation of WV Code 18-29-2, section n; harassment in regard to grievant's
evaluation/observation being rated as does not meet standards under item
of dresses appropriately for job responsibilities.
Relief sought is to have rating removed and rated as meets standard.
The grievance was denied at level one and a level two hearing was held on November 16,
1999. The grievance was denied by the Superintendent's designee, Harold Hatfield, by
decision dated December 16, 1999. The Board elected to by-pass the grievance
procedure at level three pursuant to
W. Va. Code § 18-29-4, and Grievant appealed to
level four on January 12, 2000. A hearing was held at the Grievance Board's Charleston,
West Virginia, office on March 27, 2000, and this matter became mature for decision on
April 14, 2000, the deadline for the parties' submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Grievant was represented by Susan M. Hubbard, West VirginiaEducation Association, and the Board was represented by John A. Grafton, Esq., Grafton
Law Office.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Level Two Joint Exhibits
Ex. 1 -
Ex. 2 -
Service Personnel Observation Form for Diana Randolph, dated October 27,
1999.
Level Four Exhibits
None.
Testimony
Grievant testified in her own behalf, and presented the testimony of Robert Smith,
Virgil Erskine, James Lewis, Okey Sumner, Jr., and Eleanor Edwards.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grievant is employed by the Board as an inventory supervisor/buyer, and
works in the warehouse.
2. In or about 1995, Grievant approached her supervisor, Robert Smith, and
asked him to assist her being reclassified. Mr. Smith spoke with his supervisor, Bill
Duncan, about her request, and they both agreed it would be advantageous to the Board
to have Grievant reclassified.
3. Grievant was reclassified as an inventory specialist/buyer, with a subsequent
pay raise approximately three years later.
4. A delivery of white marker boards came to the warehouse, and Mr. Smith told
the workers to place them in Grievant's area, because the boards took up too much spacein the warehouse. Grievant complained to Bill Duncan, Mr. Smith's supervisor, that the
boards were making her area too crowded.
3. Mr. Smith observed the warehouse workers spent a lot of time visiting in
Grievant's area, and he instructed them not to visit there.
4. In 1998, it was determined that employees working in the warehouse,
especially those who have occasion to visit the schools, should have uniforms. Uniforms
were ordered and paid for by the Board for workers in the warehouse. Grievant was not
required to order a uniform at that time, but she did request and was given a pair of
coveralls.
5. Subsequently, Robert Smith, Coordinator of Purchasing, decided Grievant
should also have a uniform. He told her to go to the uniform shop and pick out a polo-type
shirt and pants, and the Board would pay for them. Mr. Smith also informed Grievant she
should wear shoes which covered her entire foot, rather than sandals or high heels.
6. Grievant did go to the uniform shop, but rather than order a shirt and pants,
she ordered some smocks to cover her clothes.
7. The county has instituted a new evaluation process for school service
personnel, which went into effect the 1999-2000 school year. As part of this evaluation
process, supervisors are required to observe their employees, and complete observation
forms. The first observation was to be completed by November 15, 1999.
8. Mr. Smith observed Grievant on October 27, 1999. He gave her a meets
standards rating on 38 of 39 total categories. He gave her a does not meet standards
for the category, dresses appropriately for job responsibilities. LII Jt. Ex. 2. 9. Observation forms do not become a part of the employee's personnel file, nor
are they considered evaluations of employees.
DISCUSSION
Grievant has the burden of proving each element of her grievance by a
preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules of the W. Va. Educ. & State Employees
Grievance Bd. 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996);
Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No.
96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997);
Hanshaw v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 33-88-
130 (Aug. 19, 1988).
See W. Va. Code § 18-29-6.
Grievant alleges she has been harassed by Mr. Smith, as evidenced by the delay
in her reclassification, the storage of white marker boards in her area, his direction to
warehouse workers not to loiter in her area, and by giving her a does not meet standard
rating in the area of dressing appropriately for her job on her October 27, 1999,
observation form. The Board denies that any of the incidents cited by Grievant constitute
harassment, and denies it has violated any policy, rule, regulation, law or statute under
which Grievant is employed.
W. Va. Code § 18-29-2(n) defines harassment as repeated or continued
disturbance, irritation, or annoyance of an employee which would be contrary to the
demeanor expected by law, policy and profession. Key to this definition is the requirement
that the action be contrary to the demeanor expected by law, policy and profession.
There is simply no evidence that Mr. Smith did anything to delay Grievant's reclassification;
in fact, the evidence demonstrates that he fully supported the reclassification, and
discussed this matter with his own supervisor, in order to facilitate the reclassification. There is no explanation given why it took three years for Grievant to be reclassified, but
there is no evidence that Mr. Smith was at fault.
Mr. Smith adequately explained why he had the white marker boards placed in
Grievant's area in that there was not enough room in the warehouse. Grievant complained
to Mr. Smith's supervisor about the boards and they were removed.
With regard to Mr. Smith's order to the warehouse workers not to loiter around
Grievant's area, he testified that the reason for the order was because the workers were
not being productive. This type of order is exactly the type of thing that would be expected
of a supervisor, and there is no evidence that it was given in order to harass Grievant.
Rather, it was to ensure the warehouse workers remained productive on the job.
While there is no written policy requiring that Grievant wear a uniform, there is also
nothing improper about Mr. Smith's request to her that she obtain one, at Board expense.
The evidence established that all other warehouse workers were wearing uniforms, and
it was not unreasonable for Mr. Smith to be concerned about Grievant wearing dresses,
sandals, or high heels in the warehouse. Mr. Smith was not satisfied with the smocks
Grievant obtained, and informed her of such, both verbally and in writing.
Mr. Smith noted on Grievant's observation form that he was not satisfied with her
decision to purchase smocks rather than a shirt and pants for a uniform. The evidence
clearly establishes that this observation form does not go into Grievant's personnel file, nor
is it considered an official evaluation. The observation is merely a tool to facilitate the
ongoing evaluation process of a supervisor vis-a-vis his employees. Mr. Smith, asGrievant's supervisor, is entitled to express his dissatisfaction with Grievant's choice
regarding the uniform, and this does not constitute harassment on his part.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Grievant has failed to meet her burden of proof that her supervisor, Robert
Smith, engaged in harassment with respect to directives given within his authority as
supervisor.
2. Grievant has also failed to show that she has suffered any adverse
consequences with regard to her October 27, 1999, observation form, as that form is not
maintained in her personnel file, nor does it become part of her official evaluation.
Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the
Circuit Court of the Putnam County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days
of receipt of this decision. W. Va. Code § 18-29-7. Neither the West Virginia Education
and State Employees Grievance Board nor any of its Administrative Law Judges is a party
to such appeal, and should not be so named. However, the appealing party is required by
W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(b) to serve a copy of the appeal petition upon the Grievance
Board. The appealing party must also provide the Board with the civil action number so
that the record can be prepared and properly transmitted to the appropriate circuit court.
__________________________________
MARY JO SWARTZ
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: May 4, 2000