Database Search Result Details

First Name Kenya
Last Name Burton
Decision Date 5/4/2023
Docket Number 2022-0812-DHHR
ALJ BTC
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources
Employment Type State
Job Title Disease Intervention Specialist 2
Topics Retroactive wages, Discrimination, Additional duties
Primary Issues Whether Grievant was discriminated against and entitled to retroactive pay for performing additional duties.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018). W. VA. CODE § 6C-2- 2(d).
Related Cases Hapney v. Pub. Emp. Ins. Agency, Dep’t of Admin., and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 2013-0861-DOA (Feb. 24, 2014) (citing Green v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res. and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 2011-1577-DHHR (Oct. 1, 2012)); Hart v. Div. of Highways and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 2015-1717-DOT (May 23, 2016). Boggess v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Docket No. 2015-0079-PSC (Mar. 25, 2015). Bonnett v. West Virginia Dep’t of Tax and Revenue and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 99-T & R-118 (Aug 30,1999), aff’d Kan. Co. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 99-AA-151 (Mar. 1, 2001). Kyle v. W. Va. State Bd. of Rehab., Docket No. VR-88-006 (Mar. 28, 1989). Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996).” Trimboli v. Dep’t 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), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003). 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).
Keywords Wages, discrimination, violation, discretionary pay, additional duties
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources in a position classified as a Disease Intervention Specialist 2. Grievant asserts she is entitled to retroactive wages for additional duties she performed. Such pay is discretionary, and employees are not entitled to retroactive wages under Respondent Division of Personnel’s policy. Grievant failed to prove Respondents discriminated against her. Grievant failed to prove she was entitled to retroactive pay or that Respondents violated any law, rule, or policy. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.

Back to Results Search Again