Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Donald
|
|
Last Name
|
Buracker
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/30/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1153-SU
|
|
ALJ
|
BLG
|
|
Respondent
|
Shepherd University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Campus Police Investigator I
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant demonstrated that Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Surbaugh v. Dep't of Health & Human Serv., Docket No. 97-HHR-235 (Sept. 29, 1997); Jones v. Bd. of Trustees/W. Va. Univ., Docket No. 90-BOT-283 (Mar. 28, 1991)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Experience; Educational Requirements; Arbitrary And Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant has been employed by Respondent for 28 years as a part-time security or police officer, and his classification for several years has been Campus Police Investigator I. Grievant applied for a posted full-time Campus Police Investigator I position, but was not considered for the position because he did not hold an Associate’s Degree, as was set forth in the posting as a minimum requirement. Several months after this posting, a second Campus Police Investigator I position was posted, for which Grievant did not apply. During this time period, there was a change in the person having oversight of the Public Safety Department, and after speaking with Grievant about Grievant’s disappointment in not being considered for this first posted position, the new person offered Grievant the second posted position, if he would apply. Grievant did not apply, nor did he indicate that he would accept this offer. Grievant argued Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in its application of the Associate’s Degree requirement. Respondent had chosen to consider experience in lieu of the educational requirement in other instances when no applicants with an Associate’s Degree applied, or were willing to accept an offer of employment. In this instance, Grievant was already in the very same classified position as a part-time employee. It is inherently unreasonable to consider Grievant not minimally qualified for the position when he is already working in the classification. Grievant should have been offered the posted full-time position.
|
Back to Results
Search Again