Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Joshua
|
|
Last Name
|
Lott
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/23/2024
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0728-DHS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Community Corrections
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Probation and Parole Officer 2
|
|
Topics
|
Selection; Discrimination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant’s non-selection was the product of prohibited discrimination.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
156 C.S.R. 1 § 3 (2018); WEST VIRIGINIA CODE § 15A-3-5; WEST VIRIGINIA CODE § 15A-7-1; WEST VIRIGINIA CODE § 15A-7-3; W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Howell v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 89 DHS 72 (Nov. 29, 1990); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92 HHR 486 (May 17, 1993); Thibault v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 93-RS-489 (July 29, 1994); 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)); 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); Burgess v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2019-0576-DOT (Nov. 22, 2019); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1594-DOT (Dec. 15, 2008); Mihaliak v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998)
|
|
Keywords
|
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
This grievance was filed when Grievant was not selected for a posted Probation and Parole Officer 3 position. The Intervenor, who also interviewed for the position, was ultimately offered the position and she accepted the position. The unique facts of this case demonstrate that the selection process cannot be viewed as arbitrary and capricious, and that discrimination did not play a role in the selection process. Grievant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he should have been selected for the position or that he was the victim of discrimination.
|
Back to Results
Search Again