Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Timothy
|
|
Last Name
|
Abner
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/26/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0183-DHS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Prisons and Jails AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO III
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant demonstrated that the determination by the Division of Personnel that his Correctional Officer 2 experience was not qualifying professional experience was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Dep’t of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 348, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Quimet v. Div. of Corr., and Rehab, et al., Docket No. 2020-0409-MAPS (May 25, 2021)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Minimum Qualifications; Promotion; Class Specification; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by the Department of Homeland Security in a position classified as a Correctional Officer 3. Grievant seeks to have his work experience as a Correctional Officer 2 count toward meeting the established minimum qualifications of the Corrections Hearing Officer class specification in order for him to be eligible for a promotion. The Division of Personnel determined that Grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications of the position as set forth in the class specification for the Corrections Hearing Officer. After consultation with, and agreement of, the Department of Homeland Security, the Division of Personnel was advised to reject the personnel transaction for the promotion. The record supported a finding that the interpretation of the minimum requirements and the determination that Grievant lacked the necessary qualifications was reasonable and Grievant was unable to demonstrate that the work of positions assigned to the classification of Correctional Officer 2 met the definition of professional. Grievant was also unable to demonstrate that the Division of Personnel’s interpretation of the definition of professional, as applied to the State’s Classification Plan, was arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again