Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
John
|
|
Last Name
|
Lamp
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/30/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2015-0076-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Juvenile Services/Lorrie Yeager Jr. Juvenile Center
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO II/FTO/Hearing Officer
|
|
Topics
|
Non-Disciplinary Demotion
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved the decision to remove his duties as a Field Training Officer was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-11.4 (2012); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(h); W. Va. Code § 23-5A-1; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(i)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Dudley v. Bur. of Senior Serv., Docket No. 01-BSS-092, (July 16, 2001); Gillespie v. W. Va. Dep't of Corr., 89-CORR-105 (Aug. 29, 1989); Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Dep’t., Docket No. 2011-1772-CONS (Oct. 23, 2013); Watson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hosp., Docket No. 2009-0558-DHHR (Dec. 31, 2009); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-141 (July 31, 1997); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 614, 474 S.E.2d 534, 544 (1996); Coddington v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket Nos. 93-HHR-265/266/267 (May 19, 1994), aff’d, Lew. Co. Cir Ct. Docket No. 94-C-00036 (Jan. 25, 1995); Matney v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-1099-DHHR (Nov. 12, 2013)
|
|
Keywords
|
Demotion; Job Duties; Classification; Witness Credibility; Retaliation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Correctional Officer II. Grievant served as a Field Training Officer at the Lorrie Yeager Jr. Juvenile Detention Center. The Facility Director removed Grievant’s duties as Field Training Officer and assigned Grievant to the regular shift rotation for Correctional Officer IIs. Grievant was not demoted and he suffered no change in pay or job class. Grievant did not prove he was functionally demoted. Grievant did not prove the decision to remove his duties as a Field Training Officer was arbitrary and capricious. Grievant established a prima facie case of retaliation but Respondent showed legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again