Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nona
|
|
Last Name
|
Ringler
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/27/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0645-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
LGB
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Support Specialist 3
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the selection process at issue was improper.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(h)
|
|
Related Cases
|
|
|
Keywords
|
Non-Selection; Promotion; Favoritism; Qualifications; Selection Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Respondent appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 2/14/19, CA No. 19-AA-9 (Webster); Final Order 5/20/2020; Affirmed
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is challenging her employer’s failure to select her for promotion to a Child Support Supervisor 2 position. Grievant asserts that she was better qualified than the successful applicant, Tina L. Good, who is an Intervenor in this grievance. Grievant failed to establish that she was the victim of prohibited favoritism. Further, Grievant failed to demonstrate that she was better qualified to fill the position than Intervenor Good, the successful applicant. Likewise, Grievant failed to establish that Respondent DHHR failed to comply with Policy Memorandum 2106 by failing to employ the specific forms recommended to record applicant qualifications. However, Grievant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the interview process was flawed by requiring the applicants to answer a question which had no bearing on the candidate’s abilities to perform the essential duties of the position, instead interfering with a public employee’s right to participate in the statutory grievance procedure. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she would have been selected had the proper process been followed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again