SUSAN H. ANDERSON,
Grievant,
v.
GREENBRIER COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
DECISION
In a grievance filed August 27, 2002, Grievant alleged Respondent improperly
pays
her less as Head Girls' Soccer Coach at Greenbrier East High School (GEHS) than it pays
the Head Football Coach at the same school. As relief, she requests “equality in coaching
pay scales . . . on the same ranking as the head high school football coach _ one month
extended employment plus $900,” and “back pay at the same above level for my entire
coaching career in Greenbrier County Schools.”
The grievance was denied at levels one and two, and level three was waived. A
level four hearing was held November 14, 2002, at the Grievance Board's Beckley office.
Grievant was represented by Rev. Jim Anderson, and Respondent was represented by
Erwin Conrad, Esq. The matter became mature for decision on December 10, 2002, upon
receipt of the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I find the following facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grievant is regularly employed as a classroom teacher at Frankford
Elementary School and for four years also has had an extracurricular contract
(See footnote 1)
as the Head
Girls' Soccer Coach at GEHS. In 2001, she was voted her region's Coach of the Year and
her team posted a 16-3-2 record.
2. All coaches in Greenbrier County are paid according to the same pay scale
of extracurricular coaching salaries, but coaches of different sports receive different
amounts. For high-school coaches, a Head Football Coach is given one month extended
employment plus $900. High School Head Girls' Soccer Coaches receive a stipend of
$1,400, but no extended employment contract. Of all the sports, only the Head and
Assistant Football Coaches receive an extended contract in addition to a stipend; all other
coaches receive a set dollar amount ranging from $2,900 for a head basketball coach to
$400 for an assistant tennis coach.
3. Scheduling for the sports teams is standardized throughout the state by the
West Virginia Secondary Schools Athletic Commission (WVSSAC). Based on the
standardized calendar,
(See footnote 2)
the high school football and soccer seasons start on the same day.
Although the football season is longer, soccer teams play about twice as many games.
4. Both football coaching and soccer coaching involve many of the same duties,
such as supervision of assistant coaches,
(See footnote 3)
ensuring students are eligible, team photo
sessions, conducting practices, traveling to games and complying with WVSSAC rules and
requirements. 5. There are also significant differences between coaching soccer and football,
such as the number of players (approximately 20 compared to over fifty) and different
practice schedules, as well as the inherent differences in the sports themselves.
6. Respondent grants football coaches an extended regular employment con-
tract based on the extra days they work as coaches outside the regular school year, but
has no formal policy by which it calculates coaches' salaries.
DISCUSSION
In non-disciplinary matters such as this, Grievant bears the burden of proving the
facts entitle her to the relief she seeks. See, W. Va. Code § 18-29-6, 156 W. Va. C. S.
R. 1 § 4.21.
Under essentially identical facts, the Grievance Board has previously established
the proper scope of review of Grievant's claim, and has found that the extracurricular pay
discrepancies that exist between coaches of different sports do not violate the principles
of pay equity. West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a provides that counties "may provide
additional compensation for any teacher assigned duties in addition to the teacher's regular
instructional duties wherein such noninstructional duties are not a part of the scheduled
hours of the regular school day. Uniformity also shall apply to such additional salary
increments or compensation for all persons performing like assignments and duties within
the county[.]" In Bailey v. Mercer County Board of Education, Docket No. 95-27-546 (Feb.
28, 1997), the administrative law judge specifically stated:
Foley v. Grant County Bd. of Educ.
, Docket No. 96-12-069 (July 26, 1996)
specifically holds that volleyball, basketball, and football coaches do not
perform “like assignments and duties” within the meaning of W. Va. Code [§]
18A-4-5a. That holding is affirmed and applied here; the undersigned
extends it to encompass the duties of soccer coaches.
Grievant argues that she has proven that in her particular case and county, the
duties of a soccer coach and a football coach are similar, but incongruously bases that
contention in part on the requirements of the WVSSAC which standardizes those
requirements throughout the state. She also points to the fact that Respondent has no
policy identifying what differences there are between the sports as factors that go into
setting the level of a coach's salary, but this lack of specific policy means there is no proof
that football coaches are overpaid and should be paid at the soccer coaches' rate.
Grievant presented no evidence that it is even proper for an employee's regular contract
to be extended on the basis of extracurricular duties that are covered by a separate
extracurricular contract.
Grievant places much emphasis on the fact that the soccer season and the football
season start at the same time, and that football coaches receive an extended contract as
well as a stipend, but she only receives a stipend. Bailey, supra also addresses that issue,
finding: "Ultimately, it is of little, if any, legal significance that the Board's basketball and
football coaches receive part of their coaching salaries via extra days on their teaching
contracts. That their total coaching compensation is higher than the grievants' is the
operative fact in the case. The total compensation received by a football or basketball
coach for his or her coaching services is the supplement addressed in Code [§] 18A-4-5a."
(Emphasis in original.) That finding also addresses Respondent's suggestion that W. Va.
Code § 18A-4-5a does not apply to extracurricular coaching contracts.
The undersigned is constrained to follow prior decisions unless they are shown to
be in error or no longer applicable. "This Grievance Board adheres to the doctrine of stare
decisis in adjudicating grievances that come before it [citations omitted]. This adherence
is founded upon a determination that the employees and employers whose relationshipsare regulated by this agency are best guided in their actions by a system that provides for
predictability, while retaining the discretion necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
statutes applied. Consistent with this approach, this Grievance Board follows precedents
established by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia as the law of this
jurisdiction. Likewise, prior decisions of this Grievance Board are followed unless a
reasoned determination is made that the prior decision was clearly in error." Thomas v.
W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources/Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 01-HHR-385
(Nov. 20, 2001). Grievant has not shown that the duties of soccer and football coaches
are so different in Greenbrier County than they are in any other county, such that her
grievance should be decided differently.
While Grievant has not sustained her burden of proof sufficiently to grant her
grievance, at least part of her requested relief merits further consideration. At the level two
hearing, Grievant's representative suggested that a committee be formed to look at
coaches' salaries and to come up with a methodology to ensure they are paid fairly.
Respondent's representative concurred that that was a good idea that merits further
consideration. Since there seems to be a consensus that the issue should be given more
attention, I suggest that Respondent give it formal consideration. Although the
undersigned may not order Respondent to do so on the basis of this grievance, there is no
reason it may not voluntarily do as Grievant suggests.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This is a non-disciplinary grievance in which Grievant bears the burden of
proof. Grievant's allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See,
W. Va. Code § 18-29-6, 156 W. Va. C. S. R. 1 § 4.21. “The preponderance standard
generally requires proof that a reasonable person would accept as sufficient that acontested fact is more likely true than not.” Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't. of Health and Human
Resources, Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993). Where the evidence equally
supports both sides, the party bearing the burden has not met its burden. Id.
2. West Virginia Code § 18A-4-5a provides that counties “may provide
additional compensation for any teacher assigned duties in addition to the teacher's regular
instructional duties wherein such noninstructional duties are not a part of the scheduled
hours of the regular school day. Uniformity also shall apply to such additional salary
increments or compensation for all persons performing like assignments and duties within
the county. . . . ”
3. Soccer, volleyball, basketball, and football coaches do not perform “like
assignments and duties” within the meaning of W. Va. Code § 18A-4-5a. See Foley v.
Grant County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-12-069 (July 26, 1996); Bailey v. Mercer County
Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-27-546 (Feb. 28, 1997).
4. “Ultimately, it is of little, if any, legal significance that the Board's basketball
and football coaches receive part of their coaching salaries via extra days on their teaching
contracts. That their total coaching compensation is higher than [Grievant's] is the
operative fact in the case. The total compensation received by a football or basketball
coach for his or her coaching services is the supplement addressed in Code [§] 18A-4-5a.”
Bailey, supra.
5. “This Grievance Board adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis in adjudicating
grievances that come before it. Chafin v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources,
Docket No. 92-HHR-132 (July 24, 1992), citing Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W. Va. 1023,
207 S.E.2d 169 (1974). See also Belcher v. W. Va. Dept. of Transp./Div. of Highways,
Docket No. 94-DOH-341 (Apr. 27, 1995). This adherence is founded upon a determinationthat the employees and employers whose relationships are regulated by this agency are
best guided in their actions by a system that provides for predictability, while retaining the
discretion necessary to effectuate the purposes of the statutes applied. Consistent with this
approach, this Grievance Board follows precedents established by the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia as the law of this jurisdiction. Likewise, prior decisions of this
Grievance Board are followed unless a reasoned determination is made that the prior
decision was clearly in error.” Thomas v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human
Resources/Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 01-HHR-385 (Nov. 20, 2001).
6. Grievant did not sustain her burden of proving that soccer coaches and
football coached perform “like assignments and duties” in Greenbrier County.
For the foregoing reasons, this grievance is hereby DENIED.
Any party may appeal this Decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the
Circuit Court of Greenbrier 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 Grievance Board with the civil action
number so that the record can be prepared and transmitted to the circuit court.
Date: December 16, 2002 ______________________________________
M. Paul Marteney
Administrative Law Judge
Footnote: 1