Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. 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); Dillon v. Wyoming County Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Baker v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 513, 534 S.E.2d 378 (2000); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 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), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Blake v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003); Conners v. Hardy Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-16-459 (Jan. 14, 2000), Barrett v. Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-15-512 (Dec. 31, 1997); Petrovich v. Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-15-074 (July 13, 1998)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a bus operator. Respondent changed Grievant’s regular bus run to correct what it believed to be a mistake made in 1987 or 1988, which created a time conflict with the extracurricular vocational run Grievant had driven since 1985. Thereafter, Respondent deemed Grievant unavailable to make the vocational run, and selected a less senior bus operator for the vocational run. These changes resulted in a change of Grievant’s work schedule and duties, and a decrease in her compensation. Grievant asserted that in making all of these changes, Respondent violated numerous provisions of the West Virginia Code. Respondent denied Grievant’s claims asserting that it made the changes to Grievant’s regular run to lawfully correct a mistake. Also, Respondent argued that Grievant was not selected for the vocational run because she was unavailable to perform the same due to a time conflict with her regular bus run. Grievant proved her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this grievance is GRANTED.
|