Database Search Result Details

First Name Deborah
Last Name Smith
Decision Date 10/17/2017
Docket Number 2017-0959-DHHR
ALJ WBM
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Child Support Technician 2
Topics Selection
Primary Issues Whether Respondent followed its adopted procedure for selection applicants for vacancies.
Outcome Granted/Denied
Statutes
Related Cases Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Workman v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04-CORR-384 (Feb. 28, 2005); Butler v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2014-0539-DHHR (Mar. 16, 2015); Neely v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-0632-DOT (Apr. 23, 2009); Forsythe v. Dep’t of Admin./ Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009)
Keywords Selection; Most Qualified Applicant; Interview; Policy; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Respondent appealed to Kanawha County 12/1/2017, Civil Action #17-AA-89 (Webster); Final Order 5/20/2020; Affirmed
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant and two other DHHR employees applied for a posted position of Child Support Specialist. Respondent selected Intervenor to fill the position. Respondent has adopted Policy Memorandum 2106 as an objective and uniform procedure for selecting successful applicants to fill vacancies within the agency. Grievant alleges that Respondent failed to follow the procedures in Policy 2106 rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious. Respondent argues that the policy was followed and a fair decision was made. Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the selection panel did not adhere to the requirements of Policy 2106, and the process was arbitrary and capricious. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she would have been selected had the process been followed.

Back to Results Search Again