Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kathie
|
|
Last Name
|
Sizemore
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/12/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2337-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections/Central Office - DOC AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Office Assistant 3
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant meets the minimum qualification for the CPS classification and/or whether her job duties fall more closely within the CPS classification than her OA 3 classification.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10; 143 C.S.E. 1, § 6.4.a.1
|
|
Related Cases
|
Prue v. Div. of Corrections & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2017-1400-MAPS (Nov. 3, 2017); Bonnett v. W. Va. Dep’t of Tax & Revenue & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 99-T&R-118 (Aug 30, 1999), Aff’d Kan. Co. C. Ct. Docket No. 99-AA-151 (Mar. 1, 2001); Toney v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-460 (June 17, 1994); Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Minimum Qualifications; Professional Experience; Classification; Job Duties; Promotion; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant challenges the West Virginia Division of Personnel’s determination that she was not eligible for promotion to the position of Program Specialist/Records Supervisor (CPS) after her selection for the position by the West Virginia Division of Corrections, her employer. Grievant highlights her experience and perceived ability to perform the duties of the position.
The Division of Personnel is the entity of WV State government charged with making classification determinations. DOP develops and manages the State’s Classification/Compensation Plan. An applicant must meet the minimum qualifications for a State classified position, before he or she can be approved for a promotion to that position. If DOP finds that an applicant is found to lack the requirements established for the position, DOP may deny the applicant’s promotion. Pursuant to applicable rules and regulations, Grievant was deemed ineligible for the position in discussion. Grievant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she met the minimum qualifications of the CPS classification specification. Further, it has not established that the duties performed by Grievant fell more closely within the CPS classification than the OA 3 classification to which her position was assigned. Grievant did not establish that Respondent DOP’s classification decision(s) were arbitrary and capricious, or clearly wrong. Accordingly, this Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again