Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lindsey
|
|
Last Name
|
Gregory, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/12/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0179-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
SLB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Juvenile Services/James H. Morton Juvenile Center
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Correctinal Case Manager
|
|
Topics
|
Pay Increase
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants proved discrimination by Respondent or to otherwise show that they were entitled to a pay increase.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Frymier v. Higher Educ. 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); Sisson v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2009-0945-CONS (Dec. 18, 2009); Clark, et al., v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2013-2251-CONS (July 22, 2014); Thewes and Thompson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Pinecrest Hosp., Docket No. 02-HHR-366 (Sept. 18, 2003); W. Va. Univ. v. Decker, [191] W. Va. [567], 447 S.E.2d 259 (1994); Moore v. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Kyle v. W. Va. State Bd. of Rehab., Docket No. VR-88-006 (Mar. 28, 1989); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998)
|
|
Keywords
|
Pay Increase; Discrimination; Discretionary Pay Raise; Classification Specification; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants both work for Respondent, one as a Correctional Case Manager and the other as a Correctional Counselor 2. Grievants assert that they should have received the same raise that Correctional Officers recently received, essentially asserting they were discriminated against because they were excluded from this pay increase. Grievants presented evidence attempting to prove that they are entitled to this raise due to the similarities between their work and the Correctional Officers’ work and because they are exposed to some of the same type of risks as the Correctional Officers. The record established that the one dollar per hour raise given to COs in particular was reasonably related to the state correctional system’s critical need to attract and retain COs to fill the numerous vacant CO positions within the system. Moreover, a review of the classification specifications for the positions that Grievants occupied plainly showed that the nature of their work differed substantially from the CO’s work. Additionally, Respondent DJS did not have the authority to provide this discretionary pay increase to Grievants. In summary, Grievants failed to prove that they were discriminated against when they were excluded from the pay raise that was awarded solely to Correctional Officers, or that Respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously or abused its discretion in connection with the pay raise that was provided exclusively to the COs.
|
Back to Results
Search Again