Database Search Result Details

First Name Eleanor
Last Name Goodman, et al.
Decision Date 6/22/2021
Docket Number 2019-0863-CONS
ALJ BTC
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Various
Topics Pay Increase
Primary Issues Whether Grievants proved that Respondent was required to provide pay increases to all employees or that the pay plan was discriminatory.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code § 17-2A-24; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.19 (2018); W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.19.2; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1)
Related Cases Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Employment Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Goodwin v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2011-0604-DOT (Mar. 4, 2011); Straley v. Putnam Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-0314-PutED (July 28, 2014), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 14-AA-91 (Nov. 16, 2015), aff’d, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 15-1207 (Nov. 16, 2016); Haddox v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-26-283 (Nov. 30, 1998); Casto v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-20-567 (May 30, 1996); Clark v. W. Va. Div. of Nat. Res., No. 14-0626 (W. Va. Sup. Ct., May 15, 2015); Flint v. Bd. of Educ., 207 W. Va. 251, 255, 531 S.E.2d 76, 80 (1999); Martin and Flint in Breza v. Ohio Cty. Bd. of Educ., 201 W. Va. 398, 497 S.E.2d 548 (1997); Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 39 (2nd Cir. 2000); Farley v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 00-PEDTA-015 (June 22, 2000)
Keywords Pay Plan Policy; Pay Increase; Discrimination
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievants are employed by Respondent, Division of Highways, in various classifications. Grievants protested Respondent’s failure to establish a pay structure for all employees that provided pay increases comparable to the pay increases establishes for certain other classifications. Grievants argued pay increases for all employees were mandated by the Legislature and the State Personnel Board and that failure to provide pay increases to all employees was discrimination. Respondent asserted the grievance was untimely filed, that its pay plan complied with the mandate of the Legislature, and the State Personnel Board and was not discriminatory. Respondent failed to prove the grievance was untimely filed. Grievants failed to prove Respondent was required to provide pay increases to all employees or that the pay plan was discriminatory. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.

Back to Results Search Again