Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lisa
|
|
Last Name
|
Paxton
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/16/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2342-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Homeland Security/Division of Emergency Management AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
SERC Program Manager/Grant Manager
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that DOP’s allocation of her position was improper or arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-3.19
|
|
Related Cases
|
Hayes v. W. Va. Department of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Propst v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 93-HHR-351 (Dec. 3, 1993); Carroll v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 04-HHR-245 (Nov. 24, 2004); 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); McComas v. Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2012-0240-PSC (Apr. 24, 2013); Dillon v. Bd. of Educ., 177 W.Va. 145, 51 S E.2d 58 (1986); Christian v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-23-173 (Mar. 31, 1995); Underwood v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-1254-DHHR (May 5, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Salary; Pay Grade; Minimum Qualifications
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
G filed to ICA 9/20/22; 22-ICA-117; 6/15/23 ICA Affirmed
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant alleges that she was offered and accepted a significant promotion both by the State Emergency Response Commission and her supervisors in the Division of Emergency Management. When she did not receive the raise, she filed a grievance arguing, among other things, that she had a binding contract to receive the promotion to a difference classification with a higher salary. She also argues that she had relied to her detriment upon the promises of her supervisors that she was getting this promotion by taking on more numerous and complex duties than she had been performing, while she waited for the raise to be processed.
The DEM was transferred from the Military Authority to Homeland Security which required the DOP to place Grievant’s position in the state classification system. The DOP determined that the predominate duties of Grievant’s position did not fit into the position Grievant thought she was performing. Homeland declined to exercise its discretion to pay Grievant a salary approximately $20,000 more per year than the paygrade for the classification which DOP concluded was the best fit for her position. Grievant did not prove that DOP’s classification allocation decision was arbitrary and capricious. Nor did she prove that Homeland’s decision regarding granting her a discretionary raise was arbitrary or capricious.
Any promises or assurances made by the SERC or Grievant’s supervisors regarding a promotion did not create a binding obligation of the Military Authority or Homeland because neither of these groups had authority to grant the promotion or raises. Grievant did not prove that there was sufficient inequity in this situation to force Respondent’s to honor the assertions of Grievant’s supervisors.
|
Back to Results
Search Again