Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Pamela
|
|
Last Name
|
Evans
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/1/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0587-BerED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Berkeley County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether this grievance was timely filed.
|
|
Outcome
|
Dismissed; Untimely
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(c)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Ct. 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); Harvey v. W. Va. Bur. 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); Haddox v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-26-283 (Nov. 30, 1998); Casto v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-20-567 (May 30, 1996); Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W. Va. 297, 465 S.E.2d 399 (1995); Fleece v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-32-090 (Aug. 13, 1999); Spahr v. Preston Co. Bd. of Educ., [182 W. Va. 726,] 391 S.E.2d 739 (1990)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Untimely Filed; Timelines; Continuing Practice; Continuing Violation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant has been employed by Respondent as a bus operator since 2001. Grievant worked for the prior 15 years as a bus operator in Maryland. This grievance is premised on Respondent not crediting Grievant for any of her work experience in Maryland in calculating her pay. Respondent has a policy of crediting employees only for prior in-state experience. Grievant has known since she was hired that Respondent was not crediting her for her Maryland work experience. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss at level 1. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the grievance was filed untimely. Grievant failed to prove that she had a proper basis to excuse her untimely filing. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again