Database Search Result Details

First Name Jeremy
Last Name Melton
Decision Date 6/7/2017
Docket Number 2016-1405-DOT
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Transportation Worker 3 Mechanic
Topics Discrimination
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved his claim of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome Granted/Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.2 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1); W.VA. Code ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2008)
Related Cases Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Whalen v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-26-234 (Feb. 27, 1998); Rose v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., 199 W. Va. 220, 483 S.E.2d 566 (1997); Naylor v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 180 W. Va. 634, 378 S.E.2d 843 (1989); Higginbotham v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Court of Mason County, No. 96-C-02 (June 17, 1996); Ball v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-384 (Mar. 13, 1995); Woods v. Fairmont State College, Docket No. 93-BOD-157 (Jan. 31, 1994); Jack v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket No. 90-DHS-524 (May 14, 1991); Lynch v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 97-DOH-060 (July 16, 1997), aff’d, Circuit Court of Kanawha County, No. 97-AA-110 (Jan. 21, 1999); Harmon v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-10-111 (July 9, 1998); Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., 182 W. Va. 726, 393 S.E.2d 739 (1990); Duruttya v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Mingo, 181 W. Va. 203, 382 S.E.2d 40 (1989); Watts v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-22-375 (Jan. 22, 1999); Edwards v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-472 (Mar. 19, 1996); Howell v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 89-DHS-72 (Nov. 29, 1990); Petry v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-20-380 (Mar. 18, 1997); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1594-DOT (Dec. 15, 2008); Baker v. Bd. of Trustees/W. Va. Univ. at Parkersburg, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998)
Keywords Discrimination; Temporary Upgrade; Supervising; Inmate; Job Description; Stipulated; Eligible
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Transportation Worker 3 Mechanic. Grievant alleged that he was being denied the opportunity to receive temporary upgrades when he supervised inmate work crews when other employees were granted the same. Thus, Grievant raised a claim of discrimination. Respondent originally asserted that Grievant was not eligible to receive temporary upgrades because his job description included supervisory work. However, Respondent later conceded that Grievant was eligible to receive temporary upgrades for supervising inmate work crews, and agreed to pay him for four hours at the upgrade rate for inmate supervision performed on February 22, 2016. The parties did not dispute that Grievant supervised the inmate crew for eight hours that day, but Respondent argued that it was required to split the upgrade between Grievant and another employee who supervised the inmate crew that day; therefore, Grievant could only receive upgrade pay for four hours. Grievant failed to prove his claim of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Grievant failed to prove that he was due compensation for inmate crew supervision performed prior to February 22, 2016. Respondent failed to present evidence to support its defense that Grievant could only be paid four hours for supervising the inmate crew on February 22, 2016. Therefore, this grievance is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.

Back to Results Search Again