Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Thomas
|
|
Last Name
|
Burgess
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/22/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0576-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 2, Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved he was the most qualified applicant, that there was any significant flaw in the selection process, or that Intervenor was selected due to favoritism.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(h); W. Va. Code § 17-2A-24
|
|
Related Cases
|
Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Wall v. Putnam County Bd of Educ., Docket No. 89-40-561 (Nov. 22, 1989); Deadrick v. Marion County Bd of Educ., Docket No. 90-24-071 (Jan. 30, 1991); Hale v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2010-1327-DOT (June 3, 2011)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Qualifications; Hiring Policy; Experience; Arbitrary and Capricious; Favoritism
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent in District 1 as a Transportation Worker 2, Equipment Operator. Grievant protests his nonselection for a Transportation Worker 3 position. Grievant failed to prove he was the most qualified applicant, that there was any significant flaw in the selection process, or that Intervenor was selected due to favoritism. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again