Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
James
|
|
Last Name
|
Shock
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/30/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2347-DOR
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
West Virginia Lottery
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Lottery Marketing Specialist
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this grievance was untimely filed.
|
|
Outcome
|
Untimely
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-1; W. Va. Code St. R. § 159-1-6.2 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Higginbotham v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Court of Mason County, No. 96-C-02 (June 17, 1996). See also Ball v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-384 (Mar. 13, 1995); Woods v. Fairmont State College, Docket No. 93-BOD-157 (Jan. 31, 1994); Jack v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket No. 90-DHS-524 (May 14, 1991); Kessler v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-445 (July 28, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Whalen v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-26-234 (Feb. 27, 1998); Rose v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., 199 W. Va. 220, 483 S.E.2d 566 (1997); Naylor v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 180 W. Va. 634, 378 S.E.2d 843 (1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Timelines; Untimely Filed; Notice
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Lottery Marketing Specialist. On March 17, 2021, Respondent notified Grievant that he was dismissed from employment, effective April 1, 2021. Grievant filed a grievance challenging his dismissal on April 9, 2021. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that this grievance was untimely filed. Grievant failed to demonstrate any proper bases for excusing his untimely filing. Therefore, the grievance is dismissed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again