Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Strider
|
|
Last Name
|
Ouimet
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/25/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0409-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Correctional Officer 4
|
|
Topics
|
Promotion
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that the determination by DOP that his Correctional Officer 1 and Correctional Officer 2 experience was not qualifying professional experience in adult or juvenile correctional custody or criminal justice program administration as required by the class specification was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R. § 143-6.4.a.1
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Dep’t of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 348, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985)
|
|
Keywords
|
Promotion; Work Experience; Minimum Qualifications; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a Correctional Officer 4. Grievant seeks to have his work experience as a Correctional Officer 1 and Correctional Officer 2 to count toward meeting the minimum qualifications of the Corrections Associate Superintendent 2 class specification in order for him to be eligible for a promotion. The Division of Personnel determined that Grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications of the Corrections Associate Superintendent 2 position. The interpretation of the minimum requirements for the Corrections Associate Superintendent 2, and the determination that Grievant lacked the qualifications for the position, was reasonable. Grievant was not able to demonstrate that the work of positions assigned to the Correctional Officer 1 and Correctional Officer 2 met the definition of “professional” as defined in the relevant policy. Grievant failed to demonstrate that the Division of Personnel’s interpretation of the definition of “professional” was arbitrary and capricious. The grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again