Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Leslie
|
|
Last Name
|
Blake
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/21/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0439-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 3, Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the selection decision was arbitrary and capricious. Whether Grievant proved that he was the most qualified candidate.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
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); Powell v. Brown, 160 W. Va. 723, 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Jones v. Dep't of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 07-DOH-340 (July 18, 2008); Forsythe v. Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009)
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Code §17-1-3; W. Va. § 6C-2-4
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Experience; Qualifications; Job Requirement; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 9/10/2020; Judge Bloom; Civil Action No. 20-AA-68, Affirmed in part, Reversed in part 1/19/2021
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant protests his non-selection for a Crew Chief position by Respondent, Department of Highways. Respondent selected Intervenor after crediting his work on private roads towards the position’s three-years of “highway” experience prerequisite. Grievant initially requested instatement into the position but now requests a reposting of the position. For the job to be reposted, Grievant must prove that the selection process was arbitrary and capricious. To be awarded the position, Grievant must prove the same for selection decision and that he was the most qualified candidate. While Grievant proved that Respondent’s selection decision was arbitrary and capricious, he did not prove that he was either the most qualified candidate or that the selection process was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again