Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nona
|
|
Last Name
|
Ringler
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/20/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2016-1061-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
LGB
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement and Larry Bostic, Intervenor
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Support Specialist III
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent violated any statute, regulation or policy in its selection process.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
143 C.S.R. 1 § 11.1(a) (2016)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Vance v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 06-DOH-418 (Jan. 24, 2007); Surbaugh v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Docket No. 97-HHR-235 (Sept. 29, 1997); Tucker v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 2013-1046-DEA (Oct. 31, 2013); Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., 580 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2009); West Coast Indus. Relations, Inc. v. NLRB, 50 F.3d 18 (9th Cir. 1995); VanDervort v. Public Serv. Comm’n, Docket No. 2015-0932-PSC (Nov. 14, 2016), aff’d, Cir Ct. of Kanawha County No. 16-AA-118 (Dec. 12, 2017); Metz v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2013-2256-CONS (Aug. 7, 2014); Frost v. Bluefield State Coll., Docket No. 2011-0895-BSC (Jan. 29, 2014); Underwood v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-0237-DHHR (Dec. 6, 2013)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Policy; Supervisory Experience; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is currently employed by Respondent as a Child Support Specialist III. Grievant and seven other employees applied for an open position as a Child Support Supervisor II in the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement. Grievant and the other applicants were interviewed by a three-member panel. The panel asked the same prepared questions of each applicant. All applicants met the minimum qualifications for the position. Each panel member rated Intervenor as the best applicant. Although there was some arguable deviation from established procedures in the manner in which the interview process was conducted, it was not shown that the decision reached was affected, nor that the decision to select Intervenor for the Child Support Supervisor II position at issue was an abuse of discretion or an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the authority to select which employee should receive a promotion. Accordingly, this grievance will be denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again