The West Virginia Supreme Court announced Thursday that it has refused ousted state schools superintendent Jorea Marple's request for a rehearing of her lawsuit against the state Board of Education.
Like its Nov. 10 decision dismissing her case, which was filed in April 2014, the court's choice this week to not revisit its decision was unanimous. In a petition filed with the high court last month, Marple's lawyers took issue with the justices' finding that the two defendants in her lawsuit - the state school board as a whole and former board President Wade Linger specifically - had "qualified immunity" from the suit.
As usual in petitions for rehearing, the Supreme Court's order denying Marple's petition came without explanation from the justices, court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy said.
The state school board's lawyers opposed the request for rehearing, basically arguing that the court had already addressed all issues raised in the petition, so its order - which stopped the case from going to trial - should stand as is. The attorneys said Marple's petition "regurgitated" arguments not suitable for a rehearing, which is meant for the court to address points it overlooked or misapprehended.
Marple's petition took issue with the Supreme Court's finding that Marple's complaint - the common substantive initial filing in a lawsuit - didn't "contain any allegation that the Board or Mr. Linger acted fraudulently, maliciously, or oppressively."
Considering that the state Constitution says the state schools superintendent serves at the "will and pleasure" of the state school board, Marple's attorneys tried to argue that her firing by the board was illegal regardless.
While specifically stating in their opinion that "we do not pass judgment on the wisdom, correctness, or fairness of Dr. Marple's termination," the justices - Circuit Judge Christopher Wilkes was assigned to the case after Chief Justice Margaret Workman disqualified herself - ruled that the firing was at the board's discretion.
The court said the state and its officials or employees are immune from liability for such discretionary actions unless "plaintiff has demonstrated that such acts or omissions are in violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable person would have known or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive." The court found Marple had not established that.
Marple's request for rehearing tried to counter this through listing several phrases that were in her complaint. One accused Linger, who's still a board member but no longer president, of leading a "covert agenda" to fire her. Another said Linger made "completely false" allegations about why the board was firing Marple.
"Consideration should be accorded as to how these allegations could not be construed to be either or all 'fraudulent, malicious or oppressive' so as to engage the application of substantive law," the petition for rehearing stated.