Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lisa
|
|
Last Name
|
Snodgrass
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/19/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1691-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Family Support Specialist
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that the selection process was fatally flawed, or she was the most qualified candidate.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 5-11-1; W. Va. Code § 6C 2 2 (d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Thibault v. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Underwood v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-0237-DHHR (Dec. 6, 2013); Workman v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04-CORR-384 (Feb. 28, 2005); Delauder v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-326 (Jan. 28, 2009); Bradley v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-06-150 (Sept. 9, 1999); Dadisman v. W. Va. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket Nos. 98-RS-023/040 (Mar. 25, 1999); Vest v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Nicholas, 193 W.Va. 222, S.E.2d 781 (1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Discrimination; Interview; Hiring Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was not selected for a vacant supervisory position she applied. She argues that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of sex and age when a young male applicant was selected who had less experience and whose degree was not relevant to the job. She also argued that she was the most qualified candidate, and the process was flawed. Grievant proved that there were flaws in the hiring process, but the outcome would not have changed had those flaws not occurred. Respondent articulated job related reasons for selecting the successful applicant.
Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to discrimination as that term is defined in the grievance procedure. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the hiring process was arbitrary and capricious as a whole.
|
Back to Results
Search Again