Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Keith
|
|
Last Name
|
Walker
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/4/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2006-PSC
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Public Service Commission/ AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Administrative Law Judge I
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant is misclassified.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-4.4(b)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Largent v. W. Va. Div. of Health and Div. of Personnel, 192 W. Va 239, 452 S.E.2d 42 (1994); Nafe v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 96-HHR-386 (Mar. 26, 1997); Brutto v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-076 (July 24, 1996); Salmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Docket No.94-DOH-555 (Mar. 20, 1995); Hickman v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH- 435 (Feb. 28, 1995); Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Res., Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Oliver v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Bureau for Child Enforcement, Docket No. 00-HHR-361 (Apr. 5, 2001); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Wilkins v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2011-1333-DEP (Aug. 2, 2013); Bonnett v. West Virginia Dep’t of Tax and Revenue and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 99-T&R-118 (Aug 30, 1999), aff’d Kan. Co. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 99-AA-151 (Mar. 1, 2001); Wilkins v. Dep’t of Env’l Prot. and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2011-1333-DEP (Aug. 2, 2013)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Job Duties; Salary; Pay Grade; Limited Supervision; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent, Public Service Commission, as an Administrative Law Judge 1. Grievant asserts he has been performing the duties of an Administrative Law Judge 2. Respondent, Division of Personnel, determined that Grievant’s position was properly classified as an Administrative Law Judge 1. Grievant failed to prove that his position operates under limited supervision or that he is responsible for predominantly complex cases. Respondent DOP’s classification determination was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again