Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Matthew
|
|
Last Name
|
Harper
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/5/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0057-DOA
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Administration/AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor 3
|
|
Topics
|
Reallocation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that DOP’s determination that he lacked the necessary supervisory experience to meet the minimum qualification for a position in the ASM 1 classification were clearly wrong or arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-4.7.b; W. Va. Code 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 (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); 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); Yerrid v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2009-1692-DOT (Mar. 26, 2010); Shores v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 2009-1583-DOT (Dec. 1, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Reallocation; Minimum Qualifications; Classification; Pay Plan Policy
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent Division of Purchasing sought to have Grievant’s position at Surplus Property reallocated to the Administrative Services Manager 1 (“ASM 1”) classification and allow Grievant to remain in that position. DOP determined that Grievant did not meet the minimum qualifications to hold a position in the ASM 1 classification because he did not hold a college degree or the requisite supervisory experience to substitute for such degree. Grievant argues that his duties in the Shopkeeper 1 and 3 classifications as well as his work for WACO Scaffolding included supervisory duties. He avers that experience qualifies him for the ASM 1 classification. DOP found that his duties in these jobs did not meet the definition for supervisory work found in the DOP policies. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that DOP’s determination was clearly wrong or arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again