Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Cynthia
|
|
Last Name
|
Snow
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/28/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1117-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Motor Vehicles and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor I
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the DOP classification determination and subsequent reallocation of Grievant’s position was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-3.28; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-4.7
|
|
Related Cases
|
Hayes v. W. Va. Dep’t of Natural Res., Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1998); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606 through 609 (Aug. 31, 1990); Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166W. Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981); W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Powell v. Paine, 221 W. Va. 458, 655 S.E.2d 204 (2007); W. Va. Dep’t of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681 (1993); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991).
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Reallocation; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant contests what she characterizes as a demotion from the Supervisor 2 classification to the Supervisor 1 classification. She is also upset that she will not receive a pay increase if she obtains a Supervisor 2 position with the DMV within two years of the change is her position. Grievant’s position was actually reallocated to the Supervisor 1 classification as a result of a review of all DMW Supervisor 2 positions. The DOP concluded that the present duties of these positions are a better fit for the Supervisor 1 classification because Grievant and others supervise clerical employees instead of technical employees. DOP’s classification decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Because Grievant retained the same pay and benefits in the Supervisor 1 position which she received for the Supervisor two position, the unambiguous language of the DOP Pay Plan Policy prohibits her from receiving a raise in pay for taking a Supervisor 2 position for the DMV within the next twenty-four months.
|
Back to Results
Search Again