Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Joseph
|
|
Last Name
|
Pratt
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/17/2024
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0201-DOA
|
|
ALJ
|
LKB
|
|
Respondent
|
General Services Division; Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor 1
|
|
Topics
|
Compensation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to recommend that Grievant receive a discretionary salary adjustment for completing basic custodial training, which was not essential to the duties of his position.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156 1-3 (2018)
|
|
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); Harvey-Gallup v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 04-HHR-149(J) (Feb. 21, 2008); Moore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Syl. Pt. 4, Callaghan v. W. Va. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 273 S.E.2d 72 (W. Va. 1980); Paxton v. Dept. of Homeland Security and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2021-2342-MAPS (Aug. 16, 2022); 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)
|
|
Keywords
|
Backpay; Salary
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed as a Supervisor I by Respondent General Services Division. Grievant filed this grievance asserting that he was wrongfully denied a discretionary salary adjustment following his completion of basic custodial training. At the Level Three hearing, Grievant failed to prove that Respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to recommend that Grievant receive that discretionary salary adjustment for completing basic custodial training, which was not essential to the duties of his position. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again