Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Travis
|
|
Last Name
|
Winans
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/28/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1630-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Case Manager
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that DOP’s initial interpretation of its policy was arbitrary and capricious or that he was entitled to back pay prior to his promotion.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-6.4.a.1 (2016); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-4
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bonnett v. West Virginia Dep’t of Tax and Revenue and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 99-T&R-118 (Aug 30, 1999), Aff’d Kan. Co. C. Ct. Docket No. 99-AA-151 (Mar. 1, 2001); Moore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Celestine v. State Police, Docket No. 2009-0256-MAPS (May 4, 2009); Harrison v. Ginsberg, 169 W. Va. 162, 286 S.E.2d 276 (1982); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Prue v. Div. of Corrections, Docket No. 2017-1400-MAPS (Nov. 3, 2017); Green v. Dept. of Health and Human Resources and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2011-1577-DHHR (Oct. 1, 2012)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Minimum Qualifications; Class Specifications Backpay; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) and was so employed when he was selected for an Investigator 2 position. The Division of Personnel (DOP) and DCR subsequently determined that Grievant was unqualified because he did not meet the minimum qualifications of the position. DOP’s policy then in effect did not allow for consideration of prior non-primary duties in determining the qualifications of an applicant. A year later, DOP’s new Director implemented a policy change allowing the consideration of Grievant’s prior non-primary investigative duties and approving Grievant for the Investigator 2 position. Grievant requests backpay to the original selection date, arguing that the initial refusal to consider his prior non-primary duties was arbitrary and capricious. Grievant did not prove that DOP’s policy prohibiting the consideration of prior non-primary duties was unreasonable. He did not prove he was entitled to backpay prior to his promotion or prior to the policy change by DOP. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again