Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Stacy
|
|
Last Name
|
Rauer
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/30/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1219-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Regional Director
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent acted in any manner that was arbitrary and capricious by paying Grievant in accordance with her classification of Corrections Program Manager 3/Regional Director.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R § 143-1-3.72
|
|
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); Largent v. W. Va. Div. of Health and Div. of Personnel, 192 W. Va. 239, 452 S.E.2d 42 (1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Reclassification; Reallocation; Pay Grade; Salary Increase; Job Duties; Position Description Form; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
During the 2018 regular session of the West Virginia Legislature a bill was passed to consolidate and reorganize several of the agencies that fell under the Department of Homeland Security. After the legislation was passed, the Department of Homeland Security worked with the Division of Personnel to standardize classifications within the Department. To address the organizational restructuring with the Department of Homeland Security, a new classification structure was proposed to the West Virginia State Personnel Board in a proposal that involved reclassifying positions into the new structure. The State Personnel Board approved the proposal at its June 21, 2018, Board meeting. The position occupied by Grievant was included in the proposal and was reclassified from the classification of Corrections Program Manager 2 to Corrections Program Manager 3 on December 8, 2018. Grievant seeks a salary increase that only occurs when a position is reallocated.
Grievant claims the duties of her position changed prior to the reclassification; however, she did not complete or submit a Position Description Form for reallocation consideration by the Division of Personnel at any point prior the State Personnel Board reclassification action. Grievant failed to prove she was entitled to receive additional money on the reclassification approved by the State Personnel Board and failed to prove that the position she occupied should have been reallocated. Grievant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Division of Personnel violated any statute, administrative rule, or policy.
|
Back to Results
Search Again