Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Matthew
|
|
Last Name
|
Hill
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/17/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0071-DHS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Homeland Security/Parole Services AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
PPO I
|
|
Topics
|
Salary Increase
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that he was discriminated against when other employees received pay above the maximum of the pay range of their job classification in error. Whether Grievant proved he was entitled to pay above the maximum of the pay range for his classification.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-5 (2016); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-5.5.b.3; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Hudkins v. State Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd., 220 W. Va. 275, 276, 647 S.E.2d 711, 712 (2007); Freeman v. Poling, 175 W. Va. 814, 819, 338 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1985); Woolridge v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-33-004 (July 9, 2004); Walker v. Dep't of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 01-DOH-450 (Sept. 19, 2001)
|
|
Keywords
|
Salary Increase; Pay Range; Discrimination
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent within the Parole Services Division as a Probation and Parole Officer. Grievant protests his employer’s refusal to pay him above the maximum salary of the pay range for his classification to fulfill incentive increases granted by the State Personnel Board. Grievant failed to prove he was entitled to receive pay above the maximum of the pay range for his job classification. Grievant further alleges discrimination as other employees received pay above the maximum salary of the pay range for their classifications. Grievant failed to prove discrimination. In addition, the payments to the compared employees were an ultra vires act, for which the employer may not be bound, as the increases were granted in error in violation of the Division of Personnel’s administrative rule. Grievant failed to prove he detrimentally relied on a promise of payment that would entitled him to equitable estoppel and any such promise would also have constituted an ultra vires act for which his employer could not be bound. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again