Database Search Result Details

First Name James
Last Name Dickens, et al.
Decision Date 3/8/2017
Docket Number 2016-0100-CONS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources/Jackie Withrow Hospital
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Various
Topics Reprisal; Shift Differential; Pay
Primary Issues Whether Grievants proved that revisions to the Shift Differential Policy constituted reprisal, and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(o)
Related Cases Goff v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Sharpe Hosp., Docket No. 2010-0524-DHHR (Feb. 14, 2012); Mickey, et al., v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Jackie Withrow Hosp., Docket No. 2014-0244-CONS (March 10, 2015); Cook v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010); Poore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Bureau for Children & Families, Docket No. 2010-0448-DHHR (Feb. 11, 2011); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-01-154 (Apr. 8, 1994); Frank’s Shoe Store v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 179 W. Va. 53, 365 S.E.2d 251 (1986); Warner v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-0986-DHHR (Oct. 21, 2013); Mace v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 377 S.E.2d 461 (W. Va. 1988); Morgan v. Pizzino, 163 W. Va. 454, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979); Sloan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 600 S.E.2d 554 (2004); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 614, 474 S.E.2d 534, 544 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf & the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Streets, et al., v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Sharpe Hosp., Docket No. 03-HHR-039 (June 25, 2003); Skaff v. Pridemore, 200 W. Va. 700, 490 S.E.2d 787 (1997); Sarver v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Office of Human Res. Mgmt Educ. Reimbursement Leave Prog., Docket No. 2016-1466-DHHR (Dec. 12, 2016)
Keywords Pay; Shift Differential; Reprisal; Arbitrary and Capricious; Retaliation; Revise; Inference; Interpretation
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievants are employed by Respondent in various positions at Jackie Withrow Hospital. Some of the Grievants were parties to a previous grievance action regarding a shift differential policy. Those Grievants prevailed as the Grievance Board found that under the policy as it was then written, they were eligible for the shift differential pay. A few months later, Respondent revised the policy, and under the same, many employees, including the Grievants in this matter, were no longer eligible for the shift differential pay. Grievants claim that the Respondent’s revision of the policy was an act of reprisal. Grievants also claim violation of the Administrative Rule and substantive due process. Respondent denies Grievants’ claims, and asserts that its revision of the policy was proper. Grievants established a prima facie case of reprisal by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption of retaliation. Grievants failed to prove their remaining claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again