Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Leah
|
|
Last Name
|
Brisendine, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/30/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0294-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Insurance Commission
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Credit Analyst II
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the consolidated grievance is barred by res adjudicata. Whether the consolidated grievance was timely filed. Whether Grievants had standing to raise claims for another employee.
|
|
Outcome
|
Dismissed; Untimely
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code §6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.2; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Vance v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 03-19-018 (May 27, 2003); Liller v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 180 W.Va. 433, 440, 376 S.E.2d 639, 646 (1988); Blake v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 201 W. Va. 469, 498 S.E.2d 41 (1997); Wagner v. Hardy County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-16-504 (Feb. 23, 1996); Elliott v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-42-304 (May 26, 1999); Farley v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. Auth., Docket No. 96-PEDTA-204 (Feb. 21, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Whalen v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-26-234 (Feb. 27, 1998)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Res Judicata; Pay; Mandatory Time Lines
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent alleges the consolidated grievance is an attempt to relitigate a prior grievance related to the same issues which had been decided at level one and not appealed by the Grievants. Respondent argues that the issue of a temporary pay increase for a fellow Credit Analyst is barred from being litigated anew by the claim preclusion doctrine of res judicata. Respondent also alleges that the consolidated grievance was not timely filed. Grievants contend that the claims are different and seek different remedies. Grievants also point to recent events which they claim make their new grievance timely. There is sufficient difference between the claims filed in the two consolidated grievances to avoid preclusion of the second claim filed by pro se grievants. Conversely, the point at which Grievants became aware of the underlying facts which are the basis for their claim occurred at such time as to make the filing of this grievance outside the mandatory statutory time limit for filing.
|
Back to Results
Search Again