| First Name | Brandi |
| Last Name | Cole |
| Decision Date | 3/22/2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017-1686-DHHR |
| ALJ | CHL |
| Respondent | Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families AND Division of Personnel |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | OA II |
| Topics | Dismissed |
| Primary Issues | Whether this grievance is moot. Whether Grievant proved her claim of bad faith. |
| Outcome | Moot |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(6) |
| 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); Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 02-AA-87 (Aug. 14, 2003); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009); Priest v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Biggerstaff v. Mingo Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-29-384D (Mar. 24, 2003), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 03-AA-55 (Feb. 10, 2005); Mitias v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Docket No. 05-PSC-107R (Sept. 22, 2010), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 10-AA-185 (Sept. 11, 2012); Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993); Carney v. W. Va. Div. of Rehab. Services, Docket No. VR-88-055 (Mar. 28, 1989); Baker v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 97-BOD-265 (Oct. 8, 1997) |
| Keywords | Relief; Moot; Illusory; Advisory Opinion; Instatement; Bad Faith; Qualifications; Economic Services Worker; Office Assistant |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed be Respondent DHHR as an Office Assistant II (“OA II”) in its Summers County Office. Grievant applied for and was selected to fill an Economic Service Worker (“ESW”) position also in that office. However, Respondent DOP rejected Grievant as the successful applicant finding that she did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Grievant filed this grievance ultimately seeking instatement into the position, plus back pay and interest. Grievant’s testimony that she no longer wants the relief she had sought has rendered this grievance moot. Any decision on the merits of the claim would be illusory, or would result in an advisory opinion. Grievant raised a claim of bad faith against Respondent DHHR in her post-hearing submissions. Grievant failed to prove her claim of bad faith. Therefore, this grievance is DISMISSED. |