Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Antonio
|
|
Last Name
|
Hines
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/1/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0633-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
OA 3
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Moot
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the grievance is now moot due to Grievant’s resignation from employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Moot
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.19; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.2; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.2; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-6.19.3
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bragg v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-348 (May 28, 2004); Burkhammer v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Pritt, et al., v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0812-CONS (May 30, 2008); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009); Dooley v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Baker v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 97-BOD-265 (Oct. 8, 1997); Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993)
|
|
Keywords
|
Dismiss; Resignation; Advisory Opinion; Illusory; Moot; Merits; Nonappealable; Appealable
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant grieved a written warning he received while he was employed by Respondent. Grievant did not assert he had lost any pay due to these issues. Following the filing of his grievance, but before the level three hearing, Grievant resigned. Respondent moved to dismiss the grievance asserting mootness due to Grievant’s resignation. Grievant did not object to the dismissal of the grievance and has not denied that he resigned his employment. Respondent proved the grievance is now moot. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted, and this grievance, dismissed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again