Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Angela
|
|
Last Name
|
Hollandsworth
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/19/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-0316-DOC
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Workforce West Virginia/ AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Interviewer II / MACC Lead
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Relief
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether there is an relief available to Grievant through the grievance process.
|
|
Outcome
|
Dismissed
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.21
|
|
Related Cases
|
Lewis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-20-554 (May 27, 1998); Lowry v. W. Va. Dep’t of Educ., Docket No. 96-DOE-130 (Dec. 26, 1996); Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-315 (Jan. 25, 1996); Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009); Miraglia v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-35-270 (Feb. 19, 1993): Baker v. Bd. of Directors, Docket No. 97-BOD-265 (Oct. 8, 1997); Dooley v. Dep't. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Family and Medical Leave Act/Parental Leave Act; Policy; Relief; Advisory Opinion
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant has needed to utilize unpaid leave provided by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Parental Leave Act to care for her daughter who contracted a life-threatening medical condition. When she first applied for these leave programs, Grievant was allowed to use the Parental Leave after she had exhausted her eligibility for federal Family Leave in a twelve-month period. During a subsequent twelve-month period, Grievant was informed that a DOP policy provides that Family and Medical Leave Act benefits and Parental Leave Act benefits are utilized concurrently. Therefore, if Grievant exhausted her Family Leave benefits during a twelve-month period, her Parental Leave benefits would also be exhausted.
Grievant seeks an decision finding that the DOP policy is inconsistent with the two leave acts. Respondents argue that such a ruling would be an advisory opinion which the Grievance Board may not issue. Grievant has not been denied leave under either act, therefore, she has not suffered an injury-in-fact and any decision in this matter would be an advisory opinion. Accordingly, the grievance must be dismissed.
|
Back to Results
Search Again