Submitted: 25 January 1994
Charles R. Garten, Esq.
Charleston, West Virginia
Counsel for Appellant
Debra L. Dalton, Esq.
Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney
Union, West Virginia
Counsel for Appellee
JUSTICE NEELY delivered the Opinion of the Court.
1. Under W.Va. Code 18-4-7a , in hiring an
assistant superintendent of schools for curriculum and instruction,
seniority is not a required consideration, nor does the date that
respective doctorates were awarded create any order of precedence
among competing candidates.
2. In general, the higher the governmental position to which a candidate for employment aspires in terms of its policy- making authority, the more legitimate that candidate's positions on public issues become as criteria for employment.
Giles Jones appeals an order of the hearing examiner for
the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board
that denied a grievance filed by Mr. Jones, challenging the refusal
of the appellee, Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board"), to
place him in the position of director of curriculum and
instruction. Mr. Jones alleged that despite qualifications
superior to and experience and seniority greater than the
successful applicant, he was denied the job due to his stated
position on school consolidation.
The Board admitted through its superintendent of schools
at the hearing conducted before the hearing examiner for the West
Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board that Mr.
Jones did not get the job because he had actively opposed
consolidation. The hearing examiner upheld the Board's denial.
This matter then was appealed to the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County where the circuit court affirmed the decision of the
hearing examiner for the West Virginia Education and State
Employees Grievance Board and denied the relief sought by Mr.
Jones. We granted this appeal to determine whether any violation
of the seniority provisions governing the hiring and tenure of
central office administrative personnel had been violated and to determine whether there had been any violation of appellant's First
Amendment rights. We find that the Board neither violated any
statute nor Mr. Jones' First Amendment rights; therefore, we
In 1976 Mr. Jones was awarded a doctorate in educational
administration as well as a cognate in mathematics from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute (VPI). The successful applicant for the
position of director of curriculum and instruction, Mr. Tom
Williams, received a doctorate in educational administration from
VPI in 1987.
Mr. Jones served as assistant principal and mathematics
teacher at Peterstown High School from 1969 until 1974. From 1974
through 1976, Mr. Jones taught in the Monroe County school system.
From 1976 until June 1989, when he applied for the position of
director of curriculum and instruction, Mr. Jones was principal at
Union High School.
The successful applicant, Mr. Williams, was a classroom
science teacher from 1967 until 1982 in Greenbrier County. Mr.
Williams had no teaching or administrative experience in Monroe
County nor had he acquired any seniority in that County. He has
not been employed by any public school system since 1982. Mr. Williams gained administrative experience in the community college
Mr. Jones does not claim that either his years of
teaching in the Monroe County school system, his doctorate awarded
roughly 11 years before Mr. Williams received his doctorate, or his
experience as a principal entitled him to preference under any
school personnel seniority statute. Under W.Va. Code 18-4-7a
, in hiring an assistant superintendent of schools for
curriculum and instruction, seniority is not a required
consideration, nor does the date that respective doctorates were
awarded create any order of precedence among competing candidates.See footnote 1
Mr. Jones' position is, therefore, extraordinarily
simple: Mr. Jones maintains that when his credentials are
evaluated vis-à-vis the successful candidate, he is clearly
superior; therefore, he was denied the position exclusively because of his stated position on consolidation. The denial, Mr. Jones
maintains, is a violation of Mr. Jones' First Amendment rights.
We disagree. All of the landmark cases that protect
government employees from adverse personnel decisions because of
stated opinions on public issues involve either firings or
demotions.See footnote 2 In the case before us, Mr. Jones was not hired into a
job that he sought because the superintendent believed that his
stated position on consolidation would undermine the Board's united
front in implementing an admittedly controversial consolidation
plan. Pell v. Board of Educ. of Monroe County, 188 W.Va. 718, 426
S.E.2d 510 (1992). In general, the higher the governmental
position to which a candidate for employment aspires in terms of
its policy-making authority, the more legitimate the candidate's
positions on public issues become as criteria for employment.See footnote 3
Certainly, no one would argue that it is incumbent upon a right-
wing Republican United States Senator to consider for the job of her administrative assistant left-wing Democrats, or that a
governor committed to single-payer health insurance need hire
former presidents of the American Medical Association for the job
of secretary of health and human resources.
In the case before us, Mr. Jones was not fired, demoted
or penalized because he expressed an opinion about a controversial
public matter-- namely, school consolidation. Rather, he was not
hired to do a job where his whole-hearted and enthusiastic
cooperation in the implementation of a consolidation that had
already been decided upon was, at least, arguably, an essential
ingredient. Although it is difficult to formulate an exact, bright
line rule that concisely differentiates those circumstances where
an employee's job has so little to do with his or her stated
political views that personnel action based upon political views is
a violation of First Amendment rights and those circumstances where
job performance and political views go hand-in-hand, we can state
confidently that in the case before us, it was entirely appropriate
for the superintendent and the board to take the appellant's
position on consolidation into consideration in determining whether
to hire him as an assistant superintendent of schools.
Accordingly, for the reasons set for above, the judgment
of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County is affirmed.
Footnote: 1 W. Va. Code 18A-4-7a  provides that in judging qualifications of professional personnel other than teachers, the county board of education shall give consideration to the following factors:
Appropriate certification and/or licensure; amount of experience relevant to the position . . . ; 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.
Footnote: 2 See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), rehearing denied, 483 U.S. 1056 (1987); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1983); American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service, 830 F.2d 294 (D.C.Cir. 1987).
Footnote: 3 See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 504 (1980); Jimenez Fuentes v. Torres Gaztambide, 807 F.2d 236 (1st Circ. 1986) (en banc); Schondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 864 (7th Circ. 1985); Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164 (7th Circ. 1981); Vasquez Rios v. Hernandez Colon, 819 F.2d 319 (1st Cir. 1987); Illinois State Employees Union, Council 34, Etc. v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Circ. 1972); Breuer v. Hart, 909 F.2d 1035 (7th Cir. 1990); Stott v. Haworth, 916 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1990).