Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nick
|
|
Last Name
|
Weaver
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/2/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2014-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 3, Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent’s selection decision was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 04-DOH-423 (May 9, 2005); Freeland v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0225-DHHR (Dec. 23, 2008); Neely v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-0632-DOT (Apr. 23, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Interview Process; Supervisory Experience; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Transportation Worker 3, Equipment Operator, and grieves his nonselection for a position as Transportation Worker 3, Crew Chief. Grievant asserts that the selection decision was flawed because the selection panel failed to properly consider Grievant’s previous supervisory experience, because the selection panel was the same that had already been found to have made an arbitrary and capricious selection decision, and because a member of the selection committee pressured one of the applicants to withdraw her application and attempted to conceal this fact. Grievant failed to prove that Respondent failed to consider his previous supervisory experience or that his supervisory experience exceeded that of the successful candidates. The previous grievance decision overturning the first selection decision was not based on any factor that would require a different selection panel be chosen. The selection panel member’s attempt to conceal his conversation that lead to the withdrawal of a candidate’s application does impact his credibility, but does not constitute a flaw in the process itself, as the withdrawal of the application of another candidate would not impact the sufficiency or legality of the selection process as it relates to Grievant. Grievant failed to prove that the selection decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again