Database Search Result Details

First Name William/Vickie
Last Name Swindler/Hanshaw-Stowers
Decision Date 8/1/2023
Docket Number 2022-0496-CONS
ALJ BTC
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operators
Topics Selection; Discrimination
Primary Issues Whether Respondent was required to consider seniority in hiring a Transportation Worker 3 Crew Chief; whether Respondent's selection decision was a result of favoritism; and whether the decision was otherwise arbitrary and capricious.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 17-2A-24(d); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(h)
Related Cases Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998); 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. 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); Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam); 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); Pullen v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 06-DOH-121 (Aug. 2, 2006); Allen v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 05-DOH-230 (Sept. 23, 2005); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 04-DOH423 (May 9, 2005); Freeland v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0225- DHHR (Dec. 23, 2008)
Keywords Favoritism
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievants are employed by Respondent as Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operators. Grievants grieve their non-selection for Transportation Worker 3 Crew Chief. Grievants assert Respondent failed to consider seniority, that the selection decision was a result of favoritism, and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Grievants failed to prove Respondent was required to consider seniority, that the decision was a result of favoritism, or that the decision was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.

Back to Results Search Again