Li v. Shepherd University — West Virginia appeals court upholds dismissal of professor’s promotion grievance

Case
Mengyang Li v. Shepherd University
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge
Daniel W. Greear (Jim Justice, 2021); Charles O. Lorensen (Jim Justice, 2022)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
25-ICA-368
Topics
Public employment, grievance procedure, failure to appear, administrative appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Mengyang Li, a former Shepherd University professor, filed a grievance after the university denied his application for promotion in April 2018. The grievance was held in abeyance while an earlier grievance and related state and federal litigation proceeded.

After the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board moved to resume the matter, the parties agreed to several possible status-hearing dates. The Board scheduled a December 18, 2023 video hearing and emailed Li both the hearing notice and videoconference link at his email address of record. Li did not appear. After a show-cause order, Li said he had not received the emails, but the Board found that explanation implausible and dismissed the grievance in August 2025.

The Court’s Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Applying the administrative-review standard in West Virginia Code § 29A-5-4(g), the court found no substantial legal question or prejudicial error in the Board’s decision.

Li’s appellate arguments contested wording in the Board’s order and portions of its procedural history, but did not squarely address the basis for dismissal: his failure to attend the scheduled status hearing. Moreover, Li acknowledged in his appellate brief that he later located the emails and that they had been delivered to his email address on the dates sent. He therefore failed to affirmatively establish reversible error.

Key Takeaways

  • A grievance board may dismiss a grievance after a grievant fails to appear for a scheduled hearing and does not show adequate cause for the absence.
  • An appellant must identify error in the record below; collateral disputes about an order’s wording will not establish reversible error.
  • Li’s later acknowledgment that the hearing emails were delivered undermined his claim that he missed the hearing because he did not receive notice.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that parties in West Virginia public-employment grievance proceedings must monitor their designated email accounts and attend scheduled hearings. A claimed lack of notice may fail where the record shows that notices were sent to the address of record and were delivered.

For administrative appeals, the case also reinforces the limited scope of judicial review: the appellant must demonstrate that the agency’s decision prejudiced substantial rights under the governing review standard.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top