Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Larry
|
|
Last Name
|
Williams
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/1/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1643-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
TW3
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that he was subjected to favoritism and whether Respondent’s selection decision was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10(4); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(h)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Thibault v. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Spears v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 04-HHR-284 (July 27, 2005); Underwood v. Div. of Health & Humans Ser., Docket No. 2012-0237-DHHR (Dec. 6, 2017); Frymier v. Higher Educ. Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Neely v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-0632-DOT (Apr. 23, 2009); Forsythe v. Dep’t of Admin/Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection Process; Qualifications; Experience; Favoritism; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is contesting his non-selection for a Transportation Worker Crew Chief position. He alleges the Respondent failed to consider his seniority with the agency in violation of a statutory mandate to do so. He also alleges that the selection process was flawed and arbitrary and capricious because the interviews for the committee could not articulate any real differences between the candidates to support their decision. Finally, Grievant alleges that the selection of the successful application was the result of favoritism.
Respondent counters that in followed an organized and impartial selection procedure where the applicants were compared based upon predetermined criteria and an interview. Respondent points out that the applicants were all asked the same questions during the interviews and avers that this process was not arbitrary or capricious and was not based upon favoritism. Grievant proved his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
Back to Results
Search Again