Title: Clarke v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents
Citation: 301 S.E.2d 618
Docket Number: 15603
State: west-virginia
Issuer: west-virginia Supreme Court
Date: March 29, 1983

301 S.E.2d 618 (1983) Paul A. CLARKE v. WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF REGENTS, et al. No. 15603. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 29, 1983. *619 R.F. Gallagher &amp; Samuel Spencer Stone, Morgantown, for appellant. Gregory W. Bailey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for W.Va. Bd. of Regents. PER CURIAM: This is the second appeal by Dr. Paul A. Clarke involving his dismissal from a tenured teaching position at Fairmont State College. In his first, Clarke v. W.Va. Board of Regents, W.Va., 279 S.E.2d 169 (1981), a majority of the Court concluded that he, a tenured faculty member, could not be removed from the college payroll until the dismissal procedures consistent with the requirements of West Virginia Board of Regents Policy Bulletin No. 36 had been completed. Also, his procedural due process rights were violated by a hearing examiner's failure to state the charge or charges that had been proven and the evidence upon which he relied to make his decision. We remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of back pay to which Clarke was entitled, and to require the hearing examiner to state the reasons for his dismissal recommendation and the evidence upon which he relied. The circuit court on remand found that Clarke was entitled to pay for the period between his dismissal on May 29, 1978, and the June 7, 1978 hearing. However, because the end of the semester was May 29, he would not have received any wages and would, therefore, not actually receive any back pay. Finding ambiguity in the Clarke opinion, the trial court alternatively concluded that Clarke was entitled to back pay from the date of his dismissal until the college president adopted the hearing examiner's negative recommendation on March 2, 1979. Dr. Clarke contends he is entitled to back pay from his dismissal date until the proceedings were properly completed, i.e., *620 when the college president, following the hearing examiner's supplemental recommendation, reaffirmed his dismissal on November 11, 1981. The Board of Regents would pay him nothing. In Clarke, this Court concluded that a tenured college teacher has a right to remain on the payroll until dismissal proceedings are completed, and that Clarke had been dismissed and removed from the payroll in contravention of the formal personnel policies of the Board of Regents. We stated that: Policy Bulletin No. 36, set out in part in Note 1 of Clarke, provides that a tenured faculty member can be dismissed only according to its procedures. It grants a tenured faculty member an appeal as of right to the Board of Regents from a decision by the school president. Thus, a tenured faculty member's dismissal becomes final only after this appellate process is waived or completed. Given the Board's own policies, we recognized that Clarke had a substantial property interest in his position and salary, which he could not be deprived of without procedural due process protections. We found, however, that the college could suspend him from his teaching position with pay pending the outcome of the proceedings. We stated: Clarke is thus legally entitled to back pay until his dismissal became final by being upheld by the Board of Regents. Dr. Clarke's case was particularly troubling because even though there were several charges brought against him, neither the hearing examiner nor anyone else stated the specific charge or charges that were found to be supported by the evidence. Because of this error, we concluded that "the appropriate remedy [was] to remand the case to the appropriate tribunal with directions to order the administrative institution to remedy the defect." Id., 279 S.E.2d at 178. We did not, however, discuss what damages were recoverable for a procedural defect, absent proof of actual damages. The United States Supreme Court in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1978), involving students who *621 had been suspended from elementary and secondary schools without procedural due process, held that they could recover nominal damages not to exceed one dollar, even if their suspensions were justified, without any showing of actual damages. Justice Powell wrote for the Court: Carey teaches that Dr. Clarke cannot depend on the procedural defects to increase his back pay award if he was not actually injured by the mistakes. So, Dr. Clarke should be paid to the date the Board of Regents affirmed his dismissal, April 6, 1979. The circuit court calculation method would find him entitled to $14,125.24, plus one dollar nominal damages for the procedural due process violation. Reversed and remanded with directions.