Database Search Result Details

First Name Angela
Last Name Atkins et al.
Decision Date 3/3/2025
Docket Number 2024-0810-CONS
ALJ KDB
Respondent Department of Homeland Secuirty/ Workforce West Virginia
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Employment Programs Interviewer
Topics Pay Increase, Compensation
Primary Issues Whether Respondent was required to provide discretionary pay increases to Grievants upon their completion of the UI Fraud Investigations Certificate.
Outcome DENIED
Statutes W. Va. Code 6C-2-3(h); W. Va. Code 6C-2-2(o); W.Va. Code St. R. 156-1-3; W. Va. Code 6C-2-5(a); W. Va. Code 6C-2-5(a); 51-11-4(b)(4); 6C-2-5(b) ; W. Va. Code 29A-5-4(b);
Related Cases Duruttya v. Board of Educ., 181 W.Va. 203, 382 S.E.2d 40 (1989); Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., 182 W. Va. 726, 391  S.E.2d 739 (1990); Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 199 W. Va. 387, 484 S.E.2d 640 (1997); Spahr, 182 W. Va. at  730, 391 S.E.2d at 743; 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). Lucas v. Dep't Health and Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-141 (May 14, 2008). See also Morgan v. Dep't Health and Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-131 (June 5, 2008). Harris v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 06-DOH-224 (Jan. 31, 2007). See [Mihaliak] v. Div. of Rehab. Serv., Docket No. 98-RS-126 (Aug. 3, 1998)." Compton v. Div. of Juvenile Serv., Docket No. 2018-0756-MAPS (October 24, 2018) (citing Moore v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 2014-0046-DEP (May 9, 2014)). 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)). See 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). Syllabus Point 3, In re Queen,,196 W.Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996)." Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam).
Keywords Arbitrary and Capricious, Discretionary Pay Differential, Pay Plan Policy, Obligation, Legislative Intent, Pay Increase, Retaliation;
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant's are employed in various positions by Respondent. Grievants protest Respondent’s decision not to provide discretionary pay increases for training Grievances Completed. Respondent asserts the pay increases that Grievants seek are simply discretionary and are not required. Grievants have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to a pay increase, or that Respondent has violated any law, rule, or policy or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to grant them such. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again