Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jean
|
|
Last Name
|
Warner, et al
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/29/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0434-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Tax Department
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
|
|
Topics
|
Alternative Work Schedule
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent’s decision to terminate Grievant’s alternative work schedules was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise improper.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1594-DOT (Dec. 15, 2008); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996).” Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998)
|
|
Keywords
|
Alternative Work Schedule; Discrimination; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants are employed by Respondent as Auditor 3 field auditors. Grievants requested and were granted the opportunity to work alternative work schedules (AWS) pursuant to policy in 2018. While working AWS, Grievants worked four days per week, ten hours per day. About one year later, Respondent terminated Grievants’ AWS and returned them to a traditional work week schedule, citing decreased production. Respondent also terminated Grievants’ ability to apply for AWS in the future, but did not prohibit the office-based auditors from the doing so. Grievants allege discrimination. Respondent denies Grievants’ claims and asserts that it had the authority to terminate their AWS and prohibit them from working AWS in the future given the responsibilities of their positions. Grievants failed to prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again