Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Anna
|
|
Last Name
|
McCumbers, et al
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/2/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1226-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Protective Services (“CPS”) Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Reimbursement; Discrimination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants provided that they are being subjected to discrimination.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C 2 2 (d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Coleman v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-318 (Jan. 27, 2004); Wheeler v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection & Div. of Per., Docket No. 2018-1122-DEP (Feb. 27, 2019); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007)
|
|
Keywords
|
Reimbursements for Business Expenses; State Travel Policy; Job Duties; Discrimination; Job Classification; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants are both employed by Respondent in the Bureau for Children and Families. They are CPS Workers assigned to the Crisis Response Team. Grievants make two discrete claims. First, Grievant McCumbers and Grievant Pigman allege that Respondent is not reimbursing them in a timely manner for expenses they incur while performing their mandatory duties. These delays are for long periods and cause Grievants financial distress. Grievants did not prove that the delays were intentional or that Respondent was violating any law, rule, regulation or policy.
Next, Grievant McCumbers alleges that Respondent has a performance standard and expectation requiring her as a CRT CPS Worker to complete at least 15 CPS cases per month, while regular CPS Workers are only required to complete ten. She argues that the performance standard is arbitrary and capricious as well as discriminatory. Respondent demonstrated that the standard was interpreted and applied by management to be a flexible goal rather than a hard and fast expectation. Also issues which impair Grievant and others from meeting the goal are considered and applied. Grievant did not prove that she, as a CRT CPS Worker, was similarly situated with regular CPS Workers or that the standard as applied is arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again