Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Darren
|
|
Last Name
|
Wise
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/13/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2015-1263-DOT(R)
|
|
ALJ
|
BLG
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Highway Engineer Trainee
|
|
Topics
|
Salary
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant demonstrated that Respondent had to pay him at 20% above entry level.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Lucas v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-141 (May 14, 2008); W. Va. Public Empl. Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 179 W. Va. 605, 328 S.E.2d 356 (1985); Freeman v. Poling, 175 W. Va. 814, 819, 338 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1985); Chapman v. Dept. of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 97-DOH-261 (Nov. 24, 1997); Samsell v. State Line Dev. Co., 154 W. Va. 48, 174 S.E.2d 318 (1970); Brown v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 07-DOH-384 (Mar. 26, 2008); Underwood v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-1254-DHHR (May 5, 2009); Nuzum v. Div. of Nat. Res., Docket No. 2010-1354-DOC (Mar. 23, 2011)
|
|
Keywords
|
Salary; Entry Level; Discretionary Salary Adjustment; Co-Op Experience; Ultra Vires Promises; Equitable Estoppel
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 4/13/17 CA# 17-AA-25, Webster; Affirmed 9/8/2018
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant became aware shortly after he began his employment that his starting salary was not what he had expected. Grievant’s expectation that his salary would be 20% above entry level was based solely on a statement in the posting that the appointment “may be made at the rate of five percent for each three months of co-op experience” with Respondent. Grievant had four summers of co-op experience with Respondent, and made clear at the interview that he would not accept a starting salary of less than 20% above entry level. When the job offer was made to Grievant, he was not advised of his starting salary, nor did he make any inquiry regarding his salary. It was some time later that Grievant discovered his salary was 10% above entry level. Whether Grievant was paid any amount over the entry level salary for the position was discretionary. Discretionary salary adjustment is generally not grievable. No one promised Grievant a particular salary, nor did Grievant rely on any false representations or concealment of material facts in accepting the position and the starting salary. Grievant did not demonstrate that he was entitled to a starting salary of 20% above entry level based on the doctrine of detrimental reliance or the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
|
Back to Results
Search Again