Database Search Result Details

First Name Danny
Last Name Wolford
Decision Date 10/28/2021
Docket Number 2020-0276-CONS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operator
Topics Selection
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018)
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); Thibault v. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); Forsythe v. Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-0144-DOA (May 20, 2009); Neely v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-0632-DOT (Apr. 23, 2009); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); Queen, 196 W. Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 789 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 & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-141 (July 31, 1997); Mickles v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 06-DEP-320 (Mar. 30, 2007), aff’d, Fayette Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 07-AA-1 (Feb. 13. 2008)
Keywords Selection; Qualifications; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operator. Grievant applied for two Transportation Worker 3 Crew Chief positions, but Grievant was not selected for either position. Grievant argues that he is more qualified than at least one of the people selected to fill the two positions, and that he should have been selected instead. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims and asserts it properly filled the Crew Chief positions. Grievant failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again