| First Name | John |
| Last Name | Bonham II |
| Decision Date | 11/11/2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-0660-DOT |
| ALJ | BTC |
| Respondent | Division of Motor Vehicles |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Attorney 3 |
| Topics | Dismissal--untimely |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant's grievance, which was filed over a year after pay grades were adopted, was timely filed. |
| Outcome | Dismissed |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-4(a)(1); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(c) |
| Related Cases | Higginbotham v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Court of Mason County, No. 96-C-02 (June 17, 1996). See Ball v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-384 (Mar. 13, 1995); Woods v. Fairmont State College, Docket No. 93-BOD-157 (Jan. 31, 1994); Jack v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket No. 90-DHS-524 (May 14, 1991); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-4(a)(2); Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Employment Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Goodwin v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2011-0604-DOT (Mar. 4, 2011); Straley v. Putnam Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-0314-PutED (July 28, 2014), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 14-AA-91 (Nov. 16, 2015), aff’d, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 15-1207 (Nov. 16, 2016); Fleece v. Morgan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-32-090 (Aug. 13, 1999); W. Va. Div. of Highways v. Powell, 243 W. Va. 143, 146, 842 S.E.2d 696, 699 (2020); Powell, 243 W. Va. at 149, 842 S.E.2d at 702 (citing Wolford v. Hampshire County BOE, Docket No. 2018-0549-HamED (Mar. 1, 2019); Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., 182 W. Va. 726, 729, 391 S.E.2d 739, 742 (1990) |
| Keywords | Untimely, discrimination |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant is employed by the Department of Transportation within the Division of Motor Vehicles as an Assistant General Counsel, which is classified as an Attorney 3. Grievant asserts pay discrimination due to the adoption of two separate pay schedules for divisions within the Department of Transportation. Respondent asserts the grievance was untimely filed as it was filed almost a year after the pay schedules were adopted. Respondent proved Grievant was unequivocally notified of the adoption of the different pay schedules almost a year prior to the grievance filing. Grievant failed to prove that the discovery exception or the continuing practice exception applies. The grievance was not timely filed. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed. |