Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Charles
|
|
Last Name
|
Lynch
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/12/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2016-1872-CU
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Concord University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Trade Specialist II (Electrician)
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Res Judicata
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this grievance is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.
|
|
Outcome
|
Dismissed; Res Judicata
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 159-1-6.2 (2008); W. Va. Code § 18B-7-12
|
|
Related Cases
|
Lynch v. Concord Univ., Docket No. 2016-0478-CU (Oct. 13, 2016); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Liller v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 180 W. Va. 433, 376 S.E.2d 639 (W. Va. 1988); Boyer v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-54-309 (Sept. 29, 1995); Peters v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-41-035 (Mar. 15, 1995); Ashley v. W. Va. Bur. of Senior Serv./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 00-BSS-506 (Aug. 1, 2000); Morgan v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2015-0378-DOT (Jan. 22, 2015); Huntington Brick & Tile Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 107 W. Va. 569, 149 S.E. 677 (1929); Blethen v. W. Va. Dep’t of Revenue/State Tax Dep’t, 219 W. Va. 402, 633 S.E.2d 531 (2006)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Res Judicata; Preclusion
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant previously filed a grievance alleging that he was assigned duties outside his job description and that a mutual agreement for employment was required for such. That earlier grievance was adjudicated on the merits. However, before that decision was issued, Grievant filed the instant grievance raising the same claim. In both grievances, the assignment Grievant challenged involved cleaning light fixtures without performing electrical work. Respondent argues that the doctrine of res judicata precludes Grievant from bringing this claim. Grievant filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss, but did not address the issue of res judicata. Grievant has not denied that the claims he has made in the two grievances are the same. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the doctrine of res judicata applies to preclude Grievant from pursuing the instant grievance. Therefore, this grievance is Dismissed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again