MARY ANN YEVUTA,
Grievant,
v. Docket No. 99-HHR-474
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES and
DIVISION OF PERSONNEL
Respondents.
Grievant, Mary Ann Yevuta, employed by the Department of Health and Human
Resources (DHHR or Respondent) as a Health and Human Resources (HHR) Specialist,
filed a level one grievance on March 20, 1998, in which she complained that she was
misclassified. She requested to be reclassified as a HHR Specialist, Senior, effective the
date of her assignment to her current position. Review of the grievance was waived at
levels one and two. The grievance was held in abeyance pending review of the HHR
Specialist, Senior positions in the FACTS and RAPIDS Projects by the Division of
Personnel (Personnel). Respondent DHHR denied the grievance following a level three
hearing conducted on October 27, 1999, and the matter advanced to level four on
November 9, 1999. Following continuances granted for good cause, a level four hearing
was conducted in the Grievance Board's Morgantown office on May 3, 2000. Grievant was
represented by Kevin Church, AFSCME, Respondent DHHR was represented by counsel,
Dennise Smith, and Personnel was represented by Lowell T. Basford, Assistant Director.
All parties declined the opportunity to file post-hearing proposed findings and conclusions,
and the matter became mature for decision with the submission of the lower-level record
on May 4, 2000. The facts of this matter are undisputed and may be set forth as the following
findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
1. Grievant is employed by DHHR/Bureau for Children and Families, and is
presently assigned to the Family and Children Tracking System (FACTS) Project Unit, as
a Health and Human Resources Specialist.
2. In September 1996, Grievant received a temporary upgrade when she was
appointed to the position of HHR Specialist, Senior. While in this capacity, Grievant
worked in the Charleston office developing the FACTS Project Unit.
3. In April 1997, Grievant applied for, and received, a position as HHR
Specialist. Grievant was advised that to accept the position would result in a demotion in
title because it was in a lower pay grade. Grievant did not incur any change in salary as
a result of the transfer.
4. Grievant's duties include: developing , monitoring, and scheduling testing for
FACTS applications prior to implementation; developing training materials and curriculum
for FACTS; overseeing the implementation of FACTS, including providing field support,
Help Desk, and consultation; providing input into development of policy and procedures;
training users on application at all levels, from field workers to Office of Social Services
administrators; developing assessment tools for training, and using these tools to evaluate
the effectiveness of training and identifying emerging training needs; developing,
monitoring, and scheduling training for office automation; training users on office
automation; providing field support for office automation; developing and maintainingtraining records; working closely with Regional Directors and Community Service
Managers to coordinate training for each region; scheduling application training; consulting
with contractors for the system; participating in management meetings; performing as
agency representative to community organizations or other governmental agencies relating
to the FACTS application; demonstrating the system as needed; assisting with system
enhancements such as adding New Youth services material and Adult Services which
consists of advising programmers on policies and procedures, developing case flows,
meeting with Office of Social Services staff, making policy recommendations as needed,
developing pick lists, deciding on security categories, and ensuring that Grants
Management is thorough and accurate; and providing training for CPS workers on the
theory and practice of working with cases of child sexual abuse.
5. Grievant is assigned to a specific geographic area, as are five other HHR
Specialists throughout the state, but provides her specific expertise statewide either in
person, or via telephone, e-mail, etc.
6. The entire FACTS Project Unit is overseen by Kathy Hastings, HHR
Specialist, Senior, who is Grievant's immediate supervisor.
7. Other employees classified as HHR Specialists who were given temporary
upgrades during the development of another project unit also returned to their regional
offices but were not demoted in title, and retain the classification of HHR Specialist,
Senior.
Discussion
In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, she must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that her duties for the relevant period more closely
match those of another cited classification specification than the classification to which she
is currently assigned.
See generally,
Hayes v. W. Va. Dept. of Natural Resources, Docket
No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). Personnel job specifications generally contain five
sections as follows: first is the "Nature of Work" section; second, "Distinguishing
Characteristics"; third, the "Examples of Work" section; fourth, the "Knowledge, Skills and
Abilities" section; and finally, the "Minimum Qualifications" section. These specifications
are to be read in "pyramid fashion," i.e., from top to bottom, with the different sections to
be considered as going from the more general/more critical to the more specific/less
critical.
Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991). For these
purposes, the "Nature of the Work" section of a classification specification is its most
critical section.
See generally,
Dollison v. W. Va. Dept. of Employment Security, Docket
No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989).
The key to the analysis is to ascertain whether the grievant's current classification
constitutes the "best fit" for her required duties.
Simmons v. W. Va. Dept of Health and
Human Resources, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991). The predominant duties of the
position in question are class-controlling.
Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket
Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990). Importantly, Personnel's interpretation and
explanation of the classification specifications at issue should be given great weight unless
clearly wrong.
See W. Va. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d681, 687 (1993). The holding of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in
Blankenship presents a state employee contesting her classification with a substantial
obstacle to overcome in attempting to establish that she is misclassified.
The relevant portions of the classification specifications for Health and Human
Resource Specialist and Health and Human Resource Specialist, Senior, are reproduced
below for comparison.
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST
Nature of Work
Under general supervision, performs work at the full-performance level by providing
development of programs, as well as associated policy and procedures based on
standards and regulations, administrative oversight of and complex technical assistance
with a program or a particular major component of a statewide program, or major technical
area specific to or characteristic of the Department of Health and Human Resources.
Assures compliance with federal, state, and local regulations governing the program or
technical area. Uses independent judgement to determine appropriate action taken to
achieve desired results. Has responsibility for providing consultation on highly complex
individual problem situations. Develops and delivers training programs related to assigned
program or component. Monitors and evaluates the operation of the assigned program or
program component. Exercises considerable latitude in determining approaches to
problem solving. Work may be performed independently and/or in conjunction with other
program or technical area staff. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
The Health and Human Resources Specialist is distinguished for the Health and Human
Resources Associate by the responsibility for development and management of a
statewide program or operational area or significant segment of a major statewide program
or operational area. This class is distinguished from the Health and Human Resources
Specialist, Senior, by the fact that although the Specialist may oversee clerical or support
staff in relation to the completion of his/her own work, this class does not function in a
regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over professional classes as a significantsegment of their total assignment nor does he/she have responsibility related to entire
programmatic or operational systems.
Examples of Work
Analyzes laws and regulations governing program or technical area and applies them
appropriately to resolve problems and assure compliance.
Interprets laws and regulations governing program or technical area for participants and
staff.
Monitors changes in laws and regulations and advises participants and other staff.
Confers with inter- and intra- agency personnel to transact business or discuss
information.
Collaborates on determining need for changes in procedures, guidelines, and formats;
devises resolutions and changes, and monitors success.
Drafts program manuals, clarifying the wording and describing new procedures, etc.,
accurately.
Represents the program in the area of assignment with the agency and outside entities.
Has contact with federal, state, local program representatives and participants, or technical
area personnel.
Completes related reports; may compile special and/or statistical reports, analyzing data
and interpreting results.
May oversee the work of support staff or other specialists in relation to the completion of
specific assignments.
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST, SENIOR
Nature of Work
Under general supervision, performs work at the advanced level by providing
administrative
coordination of and complex technical assistance in a component of a major statewide
program, a statewide program in its entirety, or a major technical area specific to or
characteristic of the Department of Health and Human Resources. Acts as liaison to
facilitate problem resolution and assure compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations, laws, policies, and procedures governing the program or technical area. Has
primary responsibility for developing standards for major systems and for monitoring and/or
evaluation of major complex systems or multi-program operations. May consult on highlycomplex individual situations that potentially have significant impact on systems or involve
sensitive legal issues. Has responsibility for development and issuance of comprehensive
training programs to insure basic competency and continued development of skills,
knowledge and abilities relevant to the systems for which she/he are assigned
responsibility. Uses independent judgement in determining action taken in both the
administrative and operational aspects of the area of assignment. Exercises considerable
latitude in varying methods and procedures to achieve desired results. May supervise or
act as lead worker for other professional staff. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
The Health and Human Resources Specialist, Senior, is distinguished from the Health and
Human Resources Specialist by the broader scope of administrative oversight and
responsibility for planning and operational aspects of a system of program or technical
areas. This level may function in a regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over
professional, paraprofessional and clerical classes and, if not, must have responsibility for
the conceptualization and development of major complex program and/or operational
systems.
Examples of Work
Interprets federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines for staff which provides
services; guides others in developing and utilizing plans and recommends methods of
improvement.
Effects or recommends operational changes to facilitate efficient and effective
accomplishment of goals or delivery of service.
Informs director of technical area, program, or service deficiencies and recommends
improvements.
Consults with other program or technical area staff, supervisors, or managers concerning
projects and priorities.
Develops rules, policies, and legislation regarding specific work projects.
Reads, reviews, and responds to correspondence or distributes to appropriate staff.
Develops research, information, or training programs.
Evaluates program or technical area effectiveness.
Writes, edits, or contributes to policy and procedure manuals.
Has contact with federal, state, local program representatives and officials, Department
of Health and Human Resources management and staff, and legislature.
Plans and develops budget requests and short-and-long-range work plans.
May lead or supervise professional and support staff.
In the instant case, Grievant has failed to demonstrate that DOP's determination
that the Health and Human Resources Specialist classification is the "best fit" for her
duties is "clearly wrong." While Grievant's duties are important, and indeed essential, to
the functioning of the FACTS Project Unit, these duties are in the area of training,
consultation, and technical assistance. While Grievant and her five colleagues now
function to implement the Project Unit they developed, she does not function as a lead
worker or manage a major program component, thus she cannot be classified as a Health
and Human Resources Specialist, Senior.
Mr. Basford explained at level four that Grievant does not meet the criteria for the
HHR Specialist, Senior, classification because she is not a lead worker and does not have
responsibility related to an entire programmatic or operational system, the two
characteristics which distinguish the Senior classification. Addressing Grievant's assertion
that other employees retained the HHR Specialist, Senior classification after returning to
their assigned field sites, Mr. Basford testified that unlike Grievant, those individuals were
not transferred back to the lower-level positions, and that DOP had not been advised of
the change in their duties and responsibilities. He concluded that they, not Grievant, were
improperly classified.
Both Grievant and Ms. Hastings opined that Grievant is responsible for a portion
of the statewide program; however, the evidence establishes that it is Ms. Hastings who
is responsible for the administrative coordination and management of the FACTS Project.
By comparison, while Grievant assists in the implementation of the program, she does not
function in a regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over professional classes asa significant segment of her total assignment, nor does she have responsibility related to
the entire programmatic or operational system. Consistent with the HHR Specialist job
description, Grievant is responsible for providing consultation on highly complex individual
problem situations, develops and delivers training, monitors, and evaluates the operation
of the assigned program. There is no question that Grievant is a capable and valued
employee; however, the predominant duties Grievant performs fall squarely within the
class specification to which she has been assigned. In this case, the evidence
overwhelmingly demonstrates that Grievant is properly classified as an HHR Specialist.
Consistent with the foregoing findings and discussion, the following conclusions of
law are appropriate.
Conclusions of Law
1. In order to prevail in a misclassification claim, a grievant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that her duties for the relevant period more closely match
those of another cited classification specification than the classification to which she is
currently assigned.
See generally,
Hayes v. W. Va. Dept. of Natural Resources, Docket
No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). The predominant duties of the position in question are
class-controlling.
Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607,
609 (Aug. 31, 1990).
2. The "Nature of Work" section of a classification specification is its most
critical section.
See generally,
Dollison v. W. Va. Dept. of Employment Security, Docket
No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989). 3. Personnel's interpretation and explanation of the classification specifications
at issue should be given great weight unless clearly wrong.
See,
W. Va. Dept. of Health
v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993).
4. The evidence establishes that the Health and Human Resource Specialist
classification specification is the best fit for the duties Grievant performs, and she has not
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is misclassified.
Accordingly, this grievance is
DENIED.
Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the
circuit court of the county in which the grievance occurred. Any such appeal must be filed
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision.
W.Va. Code §29-6A-7 (1998). Neither
the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board nor any of its
Administrative Law Judges is a party to such appeal, and should not be so named.
However, the appealing party is required by
W. Va. Code §29-5A-4(b) to serve a copy of
the appeal petition upon the Grievance Board. The appealing party must also provide the
Grievance Board with the civil action number so that the record can be prepared and
transmitted to the circuit court.
Date: May 17, 2000 _______________________________________
Sue Keller
Senior Administrative Law Judge