|
Related Cases
|
Donnellan v. Harrison Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-17-003 (Sept. 20, 2002), aff’d, Harrison Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action #02-C-676-3 (Aug. 13, 2004), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 050222 (May 9, 2005); Dunlap v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 2008-0808-DEP (Dec. 8, 2008), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 09-AA-73 (Sept. 10, 2009); Williamson v. W. Va. Dep’t of Tax and Revenue, Docket No. 98-T&R-275D (Sept. 30, 1998); Manchin v. Dunfee, 174 W. Va. 532, 327 S.E.2d 710 (1984); Shawnee Bank, Inc. v. Paige, 200 W. Va. 20, 27, 488 S.E.2d 20, 27 (1997); Coats-Riley v. W. Va. State Tax Dep’t, Docket No. 2014-1745-DOR (May 4, 2015); Bumgardner v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-0927-KanED (Nov. 19, 2015); Kanehl v. Dep’t of Envrt’l Protection, Docket No. 2011-0133-DEP (Dec. 7, 2010)
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant contends that a default occurred at level one of the grievance process because the level one hearing was not held within fifteen days of Respondent’s receiving the grievance as required by statute and Respondent failed to send Grievant notice of the hearing at least five days prior to the February 1, 2019, hearing deadline. Grievant contends its Notice of Intent to Enforce Default was timely filed on January 29, 2019, because Respondent could not thereafter comply with the five-day notice of hearing requirement. In addition to Grievant’s untimely filing, Respondent asserts that Grievant promised to reply to Respondent’s request for waiver of the hearing timeline after contacting her attorney, but that she never replied. Grievant asserts that Respondent was obligated to contact her attorney. Responded counters that Grievant’s attorney never made an appearance prior to filing the notice of default. Grievant prematurely filed her notice of default. Respondent reasonably relied on Grievant’s promise to respond and did not act with intent to delay the grievance process. As such, default is denied.
|