Database Search Result Details

First Name Brenda
Last Name Everett
Decision Date 9/29/2023
Docket Number 2021-2004-MAPS
ALJ JSF
Respondent Department of Homeland Security/Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Juvenile Services/ J.M. "Chick" Buckbee Juvenile Center; Division of Personnel
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Supervisor 3
Topics Reallocation; Non-disciplinary employment actions
Primary Issues Whether it was reasonable for Respondent to reallocate Grievant's position.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-3.28; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-3.72; W. VA. CODE R. § 143-1-4 et seq.; W. VA. CODE ST. R. §134-1-4.04(a)
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); Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Res., Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Syl. Pt. 4, Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166W. Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981); Syl. Pt.1, Dillon v. Bd. of County of Mingo, 171 W. Va. 631, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983); W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Syl. pt. 3, Blankenship, supra; Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985); Dillon v. Bd. of Ed. of County of Mingo, 171 W. Va. 631, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983); Bonnett v. West Virginia Dep’t of Tax and Revenue and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 99-T&R-118 (Aug 30, 1999), Aff’d Kan. Co. C. Ct. Docket No. 99-AA-151 (Mar. 1, 2001); Moore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Celestine v. State Police, Docket No. 2009-0256-MAPS (May 4, 2009); Logsdon v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-1159-DOT (Feb. 23, 2009); Kyle v. W. Va. State Bd. of Rehab., Docket No. VR-88-006 (Mar. 28, 1989); Harrison v. Ginsberg, 169 W. Va. 162, 286 S.E.2d 276 (1982); W. Va. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); 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); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Carroll v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 04-HHR-245 (Nov. 24, 2004), citing Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Services, Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990); Barrett et al v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res. & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 04-HHR389 (Dec. 6, 2007); Lee v. Dep’t of Administration and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 02-ADMN-014 (May 30, 2002); Graham v. Nicholas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-34-224 (Jan. 6, 1994); Adkins v. Workforce W. Va. and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 2009-1457-DOC (Oct. 13, 2009)
Keywords Reduction in pay; Job duties; Non-disciplinary demotion
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by Respondent DHS in a position classified as Supervisor 3. After a classification review, Respondent DOP reallocated Grievant’s position downward to an Administrative Services Assistant 2 (ASA 2). Grievant asserts improper demotion. Grievant contends her position is best suited to either Supervisor 3, Superintendent 1, or Corrections Business Manager. Respondent determined that Grievant does not supervise high-level technical or administrative positions as required for the Supervisor 3 classification and concluded that ASA 2 is the best fit for her position. Grievant failed to prove that the position reallocation was unreasonable, that another classification was a better fit, or that she was demoted. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again