ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

(3) Was there sufficient evidence to deem Rovello’s termination valid and not arbitrary or
capricious?
Holding: The court held that Rovello’s termination was not barred by res judicata or
collateral estoppel and that an improvement period is by nature assigned to a behavior that can be
improved. Moral indiscretions, to the court were not improvable as much as they should be
preventable. As to the validity of Rovello’s termination, the court held it to be excessively harsh
considering the evidence.
Reasoning: First, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, according to the
court, are inapplicable in this case. The superintendent’s suspension of Rovello did not constitute
a final judgment but rather was a step taken in the fact-finding process. Moreover, W.Va. code,
18A-2-7 specifies that a suspension can be followed by further disciplinary action. Rovello’s
argument on this point is without merit. Second, Rovello’s argument that he was entitled to an
improvement period prior to termination was well-supported with case law examples. However,
the cases presented were by nature teachers or administrators who were terminated without an
improvement period to improve target areas such as providing effective school discipline and so
on. In short, the cases highlighted behaviors that were correctable. In the court’s eyes, Rovello’s
behavior was better judged as “avoidable.” Rovello was not entitled to an improvement period
here.
Finally, the court did not dispute that Rovello had in fact engaged in misconduct by filing
improper charges, but it determined that, to an extent, Rovello was “innocent.” Through the
presentation of evidence, further testimony, and a review of the Lewis County expense policies,
the court reasonably determined that there was no written policy to preclude Rovello’s actions.
Moreover, testimony from other witnesses noted that guest expenses had been allowed on prior
128