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); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1594-DOT (Dec. 15, 2008); Large v. Department of Health and Human Resources, William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 2014-1634-DHHR (Sept. 28, 2016); Burrows v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2014-1784-CONS (Dec. 16, 2015)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed as an Economic Services Worker for Respondent. Grievant volunteered to travel to another county office to work in a program designed to assist flood victims in applying for special supplemental nutritional assistance benefits following the declaration of a disaster, D-SNAP. Sixteen workers, including Grievant, were scheduled to work D-SNAP, and were scheduled to work their regular workday hours, plus additional hours, to assist the flood victims. However, there were not as many applicants for these benefits as had been expected. Respondent made the decision to send workers home earlier than anticipated because of lack of need. Grievant was sent home four days earlier than anticipated. Grievant asserts that the decision to send her home was discriminatory and arbitrary and capricious. Grievant also asserts that she is entitled to be paid for the overtime work she missed when she was sent home early. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims, and asserts that its decision was proper. Grievant failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.
|