Database Search Result Details

First Name Lisa
Last Name Spurlock
Decision Date 10/14/2022
Docket Number 2022-0015-DOT
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways/ AND
Employment Type ST-State
Job Title TW2
Topics Discrimination; Favoritism
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidencethat Respondent has discriminated against her and subjectedher to favoritism.
Outcome Granted
Statutes W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 5-11-1 et seq.; W.VA. CODE § 6C-1-1 et seq.; W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-1 et seq.; W. VA.CODE § 6C-2-2(d); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-3(h)
Related Cases Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil ActionNo. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Hall v. Div. of JuvenileServices/Industrial Home for Youth, Docket No. 2011-0100-MAPS (June 23, 2011); Sprangle v. Dep’t of Health & HumanRes./Bureau for Children & Families, Docket No. 2021-2173-CONS (July 20, 2021); Jones v. Workforce West Virginia, DocketNo. 2022-0669-DOC (Aug. 9, 2022); Frymier v. Higher EducationPolicy Comm., 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Harris v.Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1594-DOT (Dec. 15, 2008);Vest v. Board of Educ., 193 W. Va. 222, 225, 455 S.E.2d781,784 (1995); Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Young v. Div. ofNatural Res., Docket No. 2009-0540-DOC (Nov. 13, 2009);Clarke v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, 166 W. Va. 702, 279 S.E.2d169 (1981); Burchell v. Bd. of Trustees, Marshall Univ., DocketNo. 97-BOT-011 (Aug. 29, 1997)
Keywords Discrimination; Favoritism; Assignments; Duties; Vehicle;Equipment; Credibility; Unsafe; Safety; Exhaust; Abandoned;Inspection
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Transportation WorkerII Equipment Operator (TW2EQOP). Grievant asserts that hersupervisor has discriminated against her and favored otheremployees over her in the assignment of work duties, vehicles,and equipment which lead to a heated exchange with herdistrict’s Assistant Supervisor on June 25, 2021. Grievant furtheralleges that Respondent failed to provide her the sameopportunities to operate equipment for which she was qualifiedas her coworkers were given. Respondent denies all ofGrievant’s claims and asserts that the Assistant Supervisor didnothing inappropriate on June 25, 2021, and it was Grievant who“blew up” on him over being assigned to drive a vehicle that hadno air conditioning. Grievant proved her claims of discriminationand favoritism by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore,the grievance is GRANTED.

Back to Results Search Again