Former West Virginia School Superintendent Jorea Marple is suing the state Board of Education, claiming she was illegally fired last November. Marple wants her job back. She adds that she has “suffered humiliation and anguish as a direct proximate result of her termination.”
No doubt Marple has suffered. Getting fired will do that. But Marple and a majority on the state Board of Education differed on how to respond to the comprehensive audit of public education.
“Many (board) members found no sense of urgency in the Department (of Education) to address some of the issues that have been outlined,” said Board President Wade Linger. “Too often, we were told how things can’t change instead of being offered solutions.”
Marple was, like most top administrators, an at-will employee, and therefore not subject to civil service protection.
The at-will doctrine has been an important part of employment law since it was penned in the late 19th century by Horace Wood. His 1877 treatise reasoned that the relationship between an employer and an employee, unless otherwise specified, can be terminated at any time for any reason.
Many exceptions have been added over the years. For example, an at-will employee cannot be let go because of their skin color or because he/she refuses to do something illegal or as retaliation.
Barring any of the exceptions, however, at-will employees are subject to firing without cause.
That principle was upheld by the West Virginia Supreme Court last year when it sided with the state Division of Culture and History over its firing of Fred Armstrong, the long-time director of Archives and History.
The court ruled that “an at-will employee… may be terminated at any time, without reason, unless this termination violates some substantial public policy (such as any of the reasons mentioned above).”
The state Board of Education could copy and paste the Armstrong ruling in its response to Marple.
Marple’s lawyers may believe they have the advantage, however, because of an earlier state Supreme Court decision.
In the 1982 case “Martha Major v. George DeFrench and the City of Morgantown,” the court overturned the city’s firing of Major. The ruling–which coincidentally was written by then-Justice Darrell McGraw who is Marple’s husband—expounded on the due process rights of employees and protection of the employee’s reputation.
So, how will this all end?
Marple, as an at-will employee, has a weak argument for getting her job back. Even if a sympathetic circuit judge sided with Marple, the state Supreme Court’s ruling in the Armstrong case shows the lean of the justices on such matters.
Additionally, it’s hard to imagine that Marple’s reputation has been damaged or that her ability to get another job is in peril. As the Charleston Daily Mail, which supported the Marple firing, opined, “She retains high regard even of the people who back the board’s action.”
The real issue here is not Marple’s hurt feelings, but rather the quality of public education in West Virginia, and that’s where the state Board of Education has turned its attention.
17
Comments
ShinnstonGuy
This must be a slow news day. She should be happy that she is out, as Phares has a hard job fixing a bureaucratic mess while trying to improve test scores. More luck to him.
January 8, 2013 at 6:38 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
In West Virginia " at will" means that you can be fired anytime for anything. Civil service employees can only be fired with cause and can appeal.
What is difficult about that?
January 8, 2013 at 7:21 am | Report comment
NorthernWVman
Wowbagger nothing hard about that at all but when you throw in McGraw and the entrenchment of politics into the mix, well...crybabies will be crybabies. It is not the "will of the people" but rather the will of the people if I cannot beat it in court. Come on if this was really about the children's educaiton then she would have humbly excepted her termination.
January 8, 2013 at 7:50 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
She did "except" to her termination. Is your point she didn't do so humbly enough?
January 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Report comment
NorthernWVman
lol thanks for pointing my error out. It was/is early. She did not accept her termination otherwise she would not be suing.
January 10, 2013 at 7:50 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Agreed on all counts. The U.S. has far too many lawyers!
January 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Report comment
hillbilly
Just another "sore loser."
Can you say 'Frivolous lawsuit?'
Marple is married to McGraw. Senator Erik Wells is married to Natalie Tennant. Hoppy should do a column on how many state government employees are married to another state government employee? Perhaps we would find out that there are only a couple families running the entire state...
January 8, 2013 at 8:04 am | Report comment
wirerowe
If there is no legal traction on the violation of the open meetings law, I don't see how she prevails.At will seems .pretty clear. I have seen nothing in the media that would suggest that her reputation has been damaged by any statements from board members. It seems to me that the law suit is an opportunity to further try to damage the reputation of the board like the anoymous accusation that she was let go because she was fighting sole source contracts.
January 8, 2013 at 8:14 am | Report comment
wirerowe
If there is no legal traction on the violation of the open meetings law, I don't see how she prevails.At will seems .pretty clear. I have seen nothing in the media that would suggest that her reputation has been damaged by any statements from board members. It seems to me that the law suit is an opportunity to further try to damage the reputation of the board like the anoymous accusation that she was let go because she was fighting sole source contracts.
January 8, 2013 at 8:14 am | Report comment
Shadow
It is very obvious that her experience in the private sector is very limited. I, like most people, never had more than a promised two week notice of a layoff. Thankfully, it never happened but it was always on the table and I knew it so I worked hard to avoid it. She has been coddled all her life and I guess it is difficult to accept the real world in that situation,
January 8, 2013 at 8:33 am | Report comment
Dave Jackson
She can always rejoin the ranks of classroom teachers throughout the state for there are plenty of classrooms filled with subs, temporaries, and RESA 90-minute wonders. Then her real re-education will begin and she'll understand why most teachers have little pity and even less regard for anyone who works in the Ivory Tower that is the WVDE.
January 8, 2013 at 8:57 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
Hoppy, others have already pointed this out, so I'm late to the party. You are correct when you state that "At-Will" employees are subject to termination 'with or without cause' by their employers. What no one has mentioned yet is that the same is true for the At-Will employee's relationship with their employer. Any 'At-Will' employee has the right to LEAVE their job IMMEDIATELY with or without cause if they so choose and not be subject to legal recourse from their former employers for doing so. In this sense of the word, "At-Will" status works both ways.
But I digress, back to the matter at hand. No matter what other circumstances surround her dismissal, the bottom line is Marple was terminated legally. Whether it was morally right or deserved may be in question, but the fact that she was an "At-Will" employee is not in dispute. Hoppy, you are correct and unless Marple has an attorney the caliber of Perry Mason, Ben Matlock or the late Johnny Cochran, her case may not be winnable.
January 8, 2013 at 8:59 am | Report comment
Roger
If Ms. Marple were truly concerned about her reputation and suffering humiliation, she shouldn't be filing this lawsuit.
January 8, 2013 at 9:18 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Ms. Marple needs to understand that she would suffer a great more if she was forced out of a leadership position in the private sector. I recently read where poor Don Blankenship was forced to give back the title to a 1965 Chevy truck when he was forced out at Massey Energy. Here is what else Don was forced to accept for running that company into the ground:
He'll get $12 million in severance payments -- $2 million this year and $10 million in July -- as well as $5,000 a month under a two-year consulting agreement that requires him to work no more than 32 hours a month. There's also two years of medical and dental coverage, payments from five incentive plans and secretarial assistance.
Now that's hardship!
January 8, 2013 at 9:54 am | Report comment
hillbilly
And who knows? Maybe some lawyer smelled money and convinced her to file this lawsuit...
January 8, 2013 at 11:27 am | Report comment
Lynn
Now that she has filed a law suit to get her job back, one wonders if any or all of those folks she has fired will in turn, sue her to get their jobs back.
January 8, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report comment
thornton
The lawsuit appears most about misplaced faith in job security, a bit of embarrassment at being held accountable for poor performance and, a "we'll get 'em and make 'em pay" connection to the name McGraw.
None of which matters in comparison to the state of schooling in West Virginia.
However, I doubt Team Marple cares.
January 8, 2013 at 11:30 am | Report comment