| First Name | Darren |
| Last Name | Wise |
| Decision Date | 9/15/2016 |
| Docket Number | 2015-1263-DOT |
| ALJ | BLG |
| Respondent | Division of Highways |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Assistant Maintenance Engineer |
| Topics | Dismissed; Salary |
| Primary Issues | Whether this grievance was timely filed. |
| Outcome | Dismissed; Untimely |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 18-29-4 |
| Related Cases | Craig v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 98-HHR-334 (June 24, 1999); Hale and Brown v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-315 (Jan. 25, 1996); Kessler v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-445 (July 29, 1997); Rose v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., 199 W. Va. 220, 483 S.E.2d 566 (1997); Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W. Va. 297, 465 S.E.2d 399 (1995); Haddox v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-26-283 (Nov. 30, 1998); Spahr v. Preston Co. Bd. of Educ., [182 W. Va. 726,] 391 S.E.2d 739 (1990); Nutter v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 94-HHR-630 (Mar. 23, 1995); Young v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 01-CORR-059 (July 10, 2001); Davisson v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-21-112 (July 27, 2005); Freeman v. Poling, 175 W. Va. 814, 819, 338 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1985); Chapman v. Dept. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 97-DOH-261 (Nov. 24, 1997); Nuzum v. Div. of Nat. Res., Docket No. 2010-1354-DOC (Mar. 23, 2011). |
| Keywords | Salary; Continuing Practice; Timeliness; Employer Representations; Excuse; Continuing Damage; Employer Cause of Delay; Estoppel; Effort to Resolve Grievance |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 10/14/16 CA# 16-AA-91 (Kaufman); Reversed and Remanded 2/9/17 |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant became aware shortly after he began his employment that his starting salary was not what he had expected. Grievant first filed a grievance challenging his starting salary over a year after he became aware of this issue. While Grievant’s delay in filing until the end of his probationary period can be excused, based on his supervisor’s representations, Grievant offered no excuse for the additional delay of nine months after the end of his probationary period. The grievance was not timely filed. |