Database Search Result Details

First Name Leslie
Last Name Harper
Decision Date 7/24/2018
Docket Number 2018-0457-MAPS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Corrections/Mount Olive Correctional Complex
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Case Manager
Topics Timeliness; Laches; Selection
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this matter was untimely filed or barred by the doctrine of laches. Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the selection process used by Respondent to fill the position at issue was flawed. Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to the position at issue or a pay raise.
Outcome Granted/Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(c); W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code ST. R. § 143-1-9.5.d (2016); W. Va. Code ST. R. § 143-1-9.5.f (2016)
Related Cases Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Court of Mason County, No. 96-C-02 (June 17, 1996); Ball v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-384 (Mar. 13, 1995); Woods v. Fairmont State Coll., Docket No. 93-BOD-157 (Jan. 31, 1994); Jack v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket No. 90-DHS-524 (May 14, 1991); Higginbotham v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bur. of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Goodwin v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2011-0604-DOT (Mar. 4, 2011); Straley v. Putnam Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-0314-PutED (July 28, 2014), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 14-AA-91 (Nov. 16, 2015), aff’d, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 15-1207 (Nov. 16, 2016); Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin, 121 W. Va. 41, 1 S.E.2d 251 (1939); State ex rel. Smith v. Abbot, 187 W. Va. 261, 264, 418 S.E.2d 575, 578 (1992); Mogavero v. McLucas, 543 F.2d 1081 (4th Cir. 1976); Buchanan v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 94-BOD-078 (Nov. 30, 1994); Dollison v. W. Va. Dep’t of Employment Sec., Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989); Frost v. Bluefield State Coll., et al., Docket No. 2012-0055-BSC (Sept. 22, 2014); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehabi. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 789 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf & the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Jones v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 07-DOH-340 (July 18, 2008); Dooley v. Dept. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Saddler v. Raleigh County Bd. of Education, Docket No. 02-41-420 (Apr. 29, 2003); Forsythe v. Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009)
Keywords Motion to Dismiss; Timelines; Laches; Selection; Qualified; Due Consideration; Vacancies; Arbitrary and Capricious; Repost; Flawed; Application; Lost; Diligence
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis At the times relevant herein, Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Case Manager. Grievant properly applied for a Corrections Program Specialist Senior position that had been posted. Respondent lost Grievant’s application, resulting in its failure to consider him for the position and he was not granted an interview. Respondent argues that this matter was untimely filed and is barred by the doctrine of laches. Grievant denies these claims. Grievant argues that Respondent violated provisions of the Administrative Rule and policies by failing to consider his application for the position. Respondent denied Grievant’s claims. This grievance was timely filed and is not barred by the doctrine of laches. Grievant proved his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Grievant did not prove that he was the most qualified candidate for the position, or that he was entitled to a pay increase. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Back to Results Search Again