Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Douglas
|
|
Last Name
|
Davisson
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/13/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2488-LewED
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Lewis County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
CB-Service
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Driver
|
|
Topics
|
Written Policy
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proves Respondent acted improperly in
enforcing its written policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-
2(d).
|
|
Related Cases
|
Jenkins v. West Virginia University, Docket No. 2008-0158-WVU
(June 2, 2009) (citing Skaff v. Pridemore, 200 W. Va. 700, 490
S.E.2d 787 (1997) (per curiam)) (other citations omitted). Dillon
v. Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986). State ex
rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996)
(citing Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va.
1982)). Trimboli v. Dept of Health and Human Res., Docket No.
93-HHR-322(June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket
No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998);Blake v. Kanawha County Bd.
of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha
Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002)
|
|
Keywords
|
Written Policy
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
Grievant appealed 23-ICA-344, affirmed 7/1/24
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed as a full-time bus driver by
Respondent, Lewis County Board of Education. Grievant
stepped-up to an extracurricular run in the absence of the
regular driver. Grievant chose to leave the step-up
placement for a more lucrative one-time run and was barred
from resuming the step-up run. Lewis County
Transportation Department Practices and Procedures states
that a step-up driver must remain in the step-up position for
the duration of the regular driver’s absence. Grievant
contends that Respondent allows drivers to take more
lucrative runs and still return to their step-up runs. He
claims Code gives him the right to return to the step-up run.
Grievant did not prove Respondent acted improperly in
enforcing its written policy. Accordingly, this
grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again