| First Name | David |
| Last Name | White |
| Decision Date | 5/23/2019 |
| Docket Number | 2018-1012-DOR |
| ALJ | CHL |
| Respondent | Offices of the Insurance Commissioner |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Credit Analyst 2 |
| Topics | Pay; Arbitrary and Capricious |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant proved that Respondent’s decision to end his project-based incentive pay increase was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise improper. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018) |
| 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); Lucas v. Dep’t Health and Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-141 (May 14, 2008); Morgan v. Dep’t Health and Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-131 (June 5, 2008); Prince v. Div, of Highways, Docket No. 2018-0271-DOT (Aug. 24, 2018); [Mihaliak] v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998) 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) |
| Keywords | Discretionary; Pay Increase; Pay Plan Implementation Policy; Arbitrary and Capricious; Project-based; Incentive; Project; Temporary; Completed |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Credit Analyst 2. Respondent implemented a discretionary project-based incentive 10% pay increase for Grievant who was assigned to work on a project to resolve old accounts. Grievant worked on the project for nearly twenty-seven months. In January 2018, Respondent concluded that the project was completed and terminated Grievant’s 10% pay increase in January 2018. Grievant asserts that the pay increase was not temporary, and that the project was not completed. Grievant also asserts that the Respondent’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious. Respondent denied Grievant’s claims and argued that the pay increase was properly terminated when the project was completed. Grievant failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED. |