Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Amber
|
|
Last Name
|
McDaniel
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/20/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0799-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO I
|
|
Topics
|
Promotion
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that DOP acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner as it relates to Grievant’s accredited qualifications for the position in discussion.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10; W. Va. Code St. R § 143-1-6.4.a.1
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985); Dillon v. Bd. of Ed. of County of Mingo, 171 W. Va. 631, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983); Akers v. W. Va. Dep't of Tax & Revenue, 194 W. Va. 456, 460 S.E.2d 702 (1995); Stover v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04-CORR-259 (Sept. 24, 2004)
|
|
Keywords
|
Promotion; Selection; Minimum Qualifications; Experience; Job Posting; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant applied to a vacant posting seeking a promotion to a position classified as a Corrections Case Manager. Grievant was selected by her employer (Respondent Lakin) to fill the position; however, when the agency submitted the personnel transaction to Division of Personnel, it was determined that the Grievant did not possess the minimum qualifications of the position as set forth in the class specification for the Corrections Case Manager. Specifically, Grievant does not hold a college degree and arguably does not possess the requisite substitution for the degree requirement. Grievant believes that her employment history as a Correctional Officer (“CO”) should be counted toward meeting the substitution for the degree requirement and argues that in the past an employee’s time worked in a position classified as a CO was a permissible substitution.
Work experience as a CO is considered to be experience in the area of security. Neither Respondent DCR nor Respondent DOP currently adhere to the position or believe the experience as a CO is, or should be, considered experience in an area of corrections programming or treatment. It is true that, in the past, a small section within the DOP permitted time as a CO to count toward meeting the Training Substitution for the Corrections Case Manager classification, this was done unbeknownst to DOP management. Once discovered by DOP management, the error was corrected, and the mistake was not further perpetuated. Grievant desires to have the mistaken interpretation continued for her benefit. DOP is not legally required to perpetuate a mistake. It was not established that Grievant, as a matter of law, is entitled to the relief she seeks. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again