Background
Franklin T. Carothers, a five-year tenure-track assistant business professor at Glenville State University, alleged that he reported fraud involving prison-course instruction and federal grant funds, as well as a potential data breach. He also alleged that GSU withheld $4,200 in overload compensation and that the university later declined to renew his contract in retaliation for his complaints and whistleblowing.
Carothers pursued grievances concerning the overload pay and nonrenewal. The Grievance Board dismissed the wage-related grievance after Carothers agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over Wage Payment and Collection Act claims, and it ultimately dismissed his nonrenewal grievance as untimely. He then sued GSU, the State, and the Higher Education Policy Commission in May 2025 for breach of contract and whistleblower retaliation.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed both dismissal orders. It held that Carothers had not exhausted administrative remedies for his breach-of-contract claim against GSU. GSU had argued only that the Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction over Wage Payment and Collection Act claims, not over his common-law claim for overload pay. Because that compensation claim fell within the statutory definition of a grievance, the futility exception did not apply.
The court also held that the whistleblower retaliation claim was time-barred. Carothers learned of the nonrenewal in February 2023 but did not sue until May 2025. The alleged continuing failure to pay wages was a continuing consequence of a discrete employment decision, not repetitious wrongful conduct sufficient to invoke the continuing-tort doctrine. The court further upheld dismissal of the State and HEPC because the complaint alleged no actionable conduct by either entity, and upheld denial of leave to amend because Carothers did not properly move to amend and amendment would have been futile.
Key Takeaways
- A public employee must exhaust the grievance process for a compensation-based breach-of-contract claim when the Grievance Board has jurisdiction over that claim.
- A nonrenewal or termination claim accrues when the employee first learns of the adverse employment decision.
- Continuing effects or damages from a discrete employment action do not alone establish a continuing tort.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between claims the Grievance Board may hear and statutory wage claims for which it lacks authority, confirming that a defendant’s jurisdictional objection to the latter does not make exhaustion futile as to the former.
It also reinforces that employees asserting whistleblower claims must sue within the applicable limitations period after receiving notice of the adverse action, and that generalized allegations about government entities’ oversight roles do not state a claim that those entities were the employee’s statutory employer.