Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lawrence
|
|
Last Name
|
Underwood
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/3/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-1511-BroED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Brooke County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Computer Technician
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent was arbitrary or capricious when it eliminated his CRT service position. Whether Grievant proved that Respondent was arbitrary or capricious in not selecting him for the TSS position.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 126-136-4.5 (2020); W. Va. Code 18A-4-7a; W. Va. Code § 18A-1-1(b); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(o)
|
|
Related Cases
|
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); 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); Duruttya v. Board of Educ., 181 W.Va. 203, 382 S.E.2d 40 (1989); Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 199 W. Va. 387, 484 S.E.2d 640 (1997); Cook v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-01-154 (Apr. 8, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Reduction in Force (RIF); Non-Selection; Arbitrary and Capricious; Retaliation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Computer Repair Technician (CRT), a position without a degree requirement. This and two other technology positions were eliminated through a reduction in force (RIF). Grievant was not selected for the Technology Systems Specialist (TSS) position that replaced them. Grievant claims his RIF and non-selection were improper because his duties were identical to the TSS and he had more seniority than the applicant selected. Grievant contends Respondent was arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by retaliation and discrimination, in eliminating his position and replacing it with one requiring a degree. Respondent counters that, unlike the CRT, the TSS can do needed work on its network and requires a degree. Grievant failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent’s actions were retaliatory, discriminatory, or arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again