DAVIS, Justice:

These consolidated appeals submit the same legal issue for this Court's review: whether a circuit court action alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code § 5-11-1 et seq. ("WVHRA") is proper in the absence of the exhaustion of administrative remedies available pursuant to the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Procedure, W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1 et seq. ("Grievance Procedure"). In these combined cases, Theresa Weimer ("Ms. Weimer") and Vicky Lou Hughes ("Ms. Hughes") (collectively, "the petitioners") appeal the respective circuit courts' dismissals of their complaints. On appeal to this Court, the petitioners argue that the circuit courts erred in the determinations that the exhaustion of the Grievance Procedure was a necessary precondition to the filing of a circuit court action. Upon a review of the parties' briefs,1 the appendix records designated for appellate consideration, the governing law, and the parties' oral arguments, we reverse the rulings of the circuit courts and remand for further proceedings. Specifically, in Case Number 12-0477 regarding Ms. Weimer, we reverse the March 12, 2012, "Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies" entered by the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County and remand the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion. Additionally, in Case Number 12-1506 regarding Ms. Hughes, we reverse the Circuit Court of Monongalia County's November 13, 2012, "Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" and remand for additional judicial proceedings comporting with the discussion contained herein.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Because the errors assigned in each of the cases sub judice are substantially the same, they have been consolidated for this Court's consideration and decision. Resolution of these cases is based purely on the legal issues. However, a brief recitation of the individual facts giving rise to each appeal is set forth below.

A. Theresa L. Weimer, Case Number 12-0477

In 2006, Ms. Weimer began teaching at Pocahontas County High School ("PCHS"), a public school. During her teaching career at PCHS, she suffered from insulin-dependent diabetes, lumbar degenerative disk disease, depression, degenerative joint disease, fibromyalgia, plantar fasciitis, acute renal failure, hypertension, and sleep apnea. Ms. Weimer's medical problems were known to her supervisor, the school principal. Ms. Weimer asserts that the school principal harassed her, told her he needed "healthy teachers," and failed to provide accommodations. She received a letter in 2009 from the principal regarding her alleged inability to teach. Further, she was suspended without pay on November 30, 2009; however, this suspension eventually was converted to family medical leave. Ms. Weimer returned to work in Fall 2010, and states that she expected work accommodations. In particular, she requested smaller class sizes and/or assistance from a teacher's aide, which she asserts were refused by the principal.

In late 2011, Ms. Weimer tripped and fell in her classroom. Ms. Weimer contends that the principal used this incident against her based on the perception that it occurred because of her disabilities. Shortly thereafter, it was recommended that Ms. Weimer's employment be terminated: a pretermination hearing was conducted, which included evidence that Ms. Weimer had teaching deficiencies, including falling asleep while teaching and leaving students unattended. Based upon the recommendations of the school principal and the school superintendent, Ms. Weimer's position as a public school teacher was terminated by the Pocahontas County Board of Education on October 27, 2011.

Subsequent thereto, on November 30, 2011, Ms. Weimer filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County against Thomas Sanders, the Principal of PCHS; C.C. Lester, the Superintendent of the Pocahontas County Board of Education; and the Pocahontas County Board of Education (collectively, "the Weimer respondents"). Ms. Weimer did not file a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board ("Grievance Board"). See W. Va.Code § 6C-2-1 et seq. The circuit court complaint asserted violations under the WVHRA: discriminatory discharge on the basis of actual or perceived disability; hostile work environment on the basis of actual or perceived disability; and disparate discipline on the basis of actual or perceived disability.

The Weimer respondents filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which they argued that Ms. Weimer's complaint was flawed because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Grievance Board. By order entered March 12, 2012, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The lower court reasoned that facts alleged in the complaint point to "discrimination," "harassment," "favoritism," and other matters that may properly be addressed by the Grievance Procedure. Ultimately, the circuit court ruled that Ms. Weimer first must exhaust her administrative remedies available through the Grievance Procedure prior to bringing a claim pursuant to the WVHRA before the circuit court. Ms. Weimer appealed to this Court, and her case was consolidated with Hughes v. West Virginia University, Case Number 12-1506.

B. Vicky Lou Hughes, Case Number 12-1506

Ms. Hughes began employment in December 2007 as a coordinator/clinical associate for the Center for Excellence in Disabilities ("CED"), a branch of West Virginia University ("WVU"). Her position provided Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI") services throughout the state. During the interview process, Ms. Hughes advised the CED that she has a disability known as multiple chemical sensitivity, which requires reasonable accommodation. Initially, the CED accommodated Ms. Hughes's requests, permitting her to use her personal vehicle for work travel and allowing her to work from a different office location while her regular office location was undergoing renovation.

On April 6, 2010, a meeting was held wherein Ms. Hughes was informed that there had been consumer complaints regarding her job performance. After an investigation, a warning letter was issued June 11, 2010, stating that Ms. Hughes's work quality was unsatisfactory. After the April 6, 2010, meeting, it was alleged that Ms. Hughes had engaged in additional inappropriate and potentially unethical clinical procedures and client interactions. Ms. Hughes argued that these allegations were false and were made with the purpose and intent of harassing her in retribution for her requests for accommodation.

Ms. Hughes, in June 2010, suffered an orthopedic injury that resulted in a medical leave of absence of approximately one year. When she attempted to return to work, she was advised that several of her requests for accommodation had been rejected. On October 31, 2011, her employment was terminated.

Ms. Hughes initiated the Grievance Procedure, asserting that her employer had refused to provide needed reasonable accommodations. Reportedly, several grievance hearings had occurred, with another grievance hearing scheduled to take place in late 2012. However, prior to the holding of the latest grievance hearing, Ms. Hughes filed the instant civil action in circuit court against the respondents: WVU;2 Jeanette Motsch, Executive Officer for Social Justice; and Mary Roberta "Bobbie" Brandt, Medical Management and ADA Compliance Officer (collectively, "the Hughes respondents"). In her civil action, Ms. Hughes alleged violations of the WVHRA for the failure to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability. The Hughes respondents moved the circuit court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based upon Ms. Hughes's failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing the civil action. Moreover, the Hughes respondents argued that Ms. Hughes had started the grievance process, which must be completed prior to a civil action on the same issues.

By order of November 13, 2012, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that a circuit court action under the WVHRA is not precluded by prior grievance proceedings. However, the circuit court found that a parallel, contemporaneous proceeding may not be maintained. Accordingly, the circuit court ruled that Ms. Hughes, having elected the Grievance Procedure, must exhaust her administrative remedies before filing an action in circuit court. Ms. Hughes appealed to this Court, and her case was consolidated with Weimer v. Sanders, Case Number 12-0477.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The consolidated appeals before this Court result from the lower courts' granting of motions to dismiss. It is well settled that "[a]ppellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). Further, recognizing that this case requires review of a purely legal issue, we have counseled that "[w]here the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). Mindful of this applicable standard, we now consider the substantive issues raised herein.

III.

DISCUSSION

On appeal to this Court, Ms. Weimer asserts that the circuit court erred in its determination that administrative procedures must be exhausted before an action can be maintained in the circuit court. Thus, Ms. Weimer claims that the circuit court's dismissal of her complaint was flawed. Similarly, Ms. Hughes argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing her complaint based on its finding that she had not completed the grievance process and, further, in its ruling that commencement of the Grievance Procedure requires conclusion of the same. In essence, these cases present to this Court the question of whether a public employee, whose employment confers grievance rights before the Grievance Board, is required to exhaust the administrative Grievance Procedure before initiating a complaint in the circuit court alleging violations of the WVHRA. Moreover, Ms. Hughes's case raises the additional question of whether commencement of the Grievance Procedure precludes the institution of a circuit court action prior to exhaustion of the Grievance Procedure.

At the outset, the initial question for this Court is whether the Grievance Procedure supplies an exclusive remedy or mandatory proceeding to the petitioners. To determine the answer, this Court must look to the statute. The Grievance Procedure applies to public employees and states, in pertinent part, that

W.Va.Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1) (2008) (Repl.Vol. 2010). The first step in statutory construction is to identify the intent expressed by the Legislature in promulgating the provision at issue. "The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). Next, we look to the particular language used by the Legislature. "Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968). Accord Syl. pt. 5, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 144 W.Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959) ("When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute."). Further guidance states that, "[i]n the absence of any definition of the intended meaning of words or terms used in a legislative enactment, they will, in the interpretation of the act, be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning in the connection in which they are used." Syl. pt. 1, Miners in Gen. Group v. Hix, 123 W.Va. 637, 17 S.E.2d 810 (1941), overruled on other grounds by Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, 170 W.Va. 162, 291 S.E.2d 477 (1982).

Under the plain wording of the statute, a public employee has a fifteen day time limit that begins to accrue based upon different factual scenarios. Within the applicable fifteen day period, "an employee may file a written grievance with the chief administrator stating the nature of the grievance[.]" (Emphasis added). As a general rule, the word "may" is afforded a permissive connotation, which renders the referenced act discretionary, rather than mandatory, in nature. See State v. Hedrick, 204 W.Va. 547, 552, 514 S.E.2d 397, 402 (1999) ("The word `may' generally signifies permission and connotes discretion." (citations omitted)). Thus, applying this discretionary connotation to the present case, we now hold that a public employee may file a written grievance to the West Virginia Public Employee Grievance Board pursuant to W. Va.Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1) (2008) (Repl.Vol.2010); however, such filing is permissive and not mandatory under the clear wording of the statute.

Having determined that the Grievance Procedure is discretionary, we turn to the issue of whether the decision to forego the filing of the permissive grievance with the Grievance Board precludes a petitioner's right to file a cause of action elsewhere. In other words, we must determine whether the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a precondition to the filing of an action in circuit court.

As noted previously, Ms. Weimer filed her action in the circuit court pursuant to the WVHRA, without having filed a grievance with the Grievance Board.3 We have expressly held that a claimant may pursue an action in either the Human Rights Commission or the circuit court. Specifically, "[a] plaintiff may, as an alternative to filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, initiate an action in circuit court to enforce rights granted by the West Virginia Human Rights Act." Syl. pt. 1, Price v. Boone Cnty. Ambulance Auth., 175 W.Va. 676, 337 S.E.2d 913 (1985).4 Despite the fact that the Human Rights Commission is an administrative agency that has jurisdiction to evaluate such claims, there is no requirement that a complainant must exhaust the administrative remedies available through the Human Rights Commission prior to filing a circuit court action.5

It stands to reason that if a claimant is not required to maintain an action before the Human Rights Commission prior to filing a claim in the circuit court, the claimant is, likewise, not required to file a grievance with the Grievance Board before filing a claim pursuant to the WVHRA in the circuit court. This is especially true given the fact that the Human Rights Commission has broader power and authority to remedy discrimination claims than does the Grievance Board.6 As this Court has explained,

Syl. pt. 1, Vest v. Board of Educ., 193 W.Va. 222, 455 S.E.2d 781 (1995) (internal footnote added). Therefore, we now hold that a plaintiff may, as an alternative to filing a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, initiate an action in circuit court to enforce rights granted by the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq.

To hold otherwise would create a disparity between remedies for WVHRA violations available to public employees and employees in the private sector. The Legislature, in enacting the WVHRA, sets forth that all West Virginia citizens shall have equal employment opportunities:

W. Va.Code § 5-11-2 (1998) (Repl.Vol.2011). We discern no reason why a public employee should be treated differently than a private employee in cases of alleged discrimination, et cetera, and be deprived of the opportunity to proceed directly to the Human Rights Commission or the circuit court.8 Thus, we find that the circuit court erred when it dismissed Ms. Weimer's action on the basis that she had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies afforded to her under the Grievance Procedure. Furthermore, dismissal of Ms. Hughes's claim on the basis that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies was also in error.

Having determined that a claimant is not required to pursue his or her administrative remedies under the Grievance Procedure prior to the commencement of an action in circuit court that alleges a claim under the WVHRA, we now turn to discuss the additional legal issue raised by the facts of Ms. Hughes's case. Ms. Hughes initiated the Grievance Procedure and several grievance hearings were held. Another grievance hearing was scheduled; however, prior to the time for the scheduled grievance hearing, Ms. Hughes filed the instant civil action in circuit court. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss on the basis that "Ms. Hughes has failed to exhaust her available remedies by pursuing an action in Circuit Court while the grievance process she had previously commenced is still pending."

We have held that a previous grievance does not preclude a subsequent action in circuit court. In that regard, we stated that "[a] civil action filed under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code, 5-11-1, et seq., is not precluded by a prior grievance decided by the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board arising out of the same facts and circumstances." Syl. pt. 3, Vest, 193 W.Va. 222, 455 S.E.2d 781. Because of the striking differences between the procedures before the Grievance Board and the Human Rights Commission and/or a circuit court, the Vest Court determined that even a resolution of a grievance by the Grievance Board does not preclude further adjudication of the claims pursuant to the WVHRA. Specifically,

Syl. pt. 2, Vest, id.

In reaching the result in Vest, we explained that

Vest, 193 W.Va. at 227, 455 S.E.2d at 786.

Factually, Ms. Vest, a substitute teacher at a public school, filed a grievance with the Grievance Board based on her termination. At a grievance hearing, Ms. Vest presented evidence in support of her discrimination claim. However, in her post-hearing brief, she voluntarily relinquished her claim upon her belief that the Grievance Procedure was not the proper forum to hear her discrimination claim. Ms. Vest's grievance was denied in a decision that contained no conclusions of law with regard to her discrimination claim. Despite the fact that her grievance had culminated in a decision, albeit a decision that did not address the discrimination claim, we found the Grievance Board's determinations had no preclusive effect over her human rights claims.

Vest stands for the proposition that a claimant can prosecute a case before the Grievance Board to its conclusion, yet still retain the right to redress for the same issue before the circuit court. The logic follows that, if a claimant commences an action before the Grievance Board and then abandons or relinquishes the claims so that there is no final decision from the Grievance Board, there is nothing to preclude a subsequent action in the circuit court. Based on the foregoing and this Court's previous allusions to the same, we now specifically hold that a civil action commenced in circuit court under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va.Code § 5-11-1 et seq., is not precluded by a grievance that was filed with, but not decided by, the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board, W. Va.Code § 6C-2-1 et seq., and arising out of the same facts and circumstances.9

IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the circuit courts' dismissal orders are reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Reversed and Remanded.

Justice WORKMAN, deeming herself disqualified, did not participate.