| First Name | Amanda |
| Last Name | Seese |
| Decision Date | 1/22/2018 |
| Docket Number | 2018-0015-DHHR |
| ALJ | CHL |
| Respondent | Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Child Protective Services Worker |
| Topics | Dismissed; Timeliness |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this grievance was untimely filed. |
| Outcome | Dismissed; Untimely |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1 et seq.; 156 C.S.R. 1 § 6.2 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1) |
| Related Cases | Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); 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 Coll., 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); Kessler v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-445 (July 28, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Prog., 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) |
| Keywords | Dismiss; Timeliness; Untimely; Affirmative Defense; Filing; Unequivocally Notified; Occurrence; Excuse; Demoted |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Child Protective Services Worker. Respondent informed Grievant in writing that she was being demoted because of her inability to perform the functions of her position. Grievant was then demoted and continued to work for Respondent in the new position. Nearly nine months after being informed of her demotion, Grievant filed a grievance challenging the same. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this grievance was untimely filed. Grievant failed to demonstrate any proper bases for excusing her untimely filing. Therefore, the grievance is dismissed. |