Grievance Appeal Case Study

San Francisco has another wrongful termination suit in the news. A worker from Madera named Jason Pimentel claims that he was the victim of wrongful termination. Pimentel filed his complaint on June 13th against Velex, Inc., Nexius Solutions, Inc. Included in the complaint are a number of alleged violations. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Facts: At the time of their original filing in the district court, inmates did not have access to their desired law research facilities. There was only one, severely arguably inadequate, state prison library and no other legal assistance was available.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of overtime pay provisions outlined in the Howard County General Pay Plan (“HCGPP”). Appellant, Lynda Neser (“Neser”) contends that she was deprived of compensation to which she was entitled under certain provisions of the HCGPP. Neser filed a grievance with the Howard County Personnel Office. A personnel officer denied Neser’s grievance. Neser then appealed the personnel officer’s decision to the appellees, the Howard County Personnel Board (“the Board”). The Board adopted the findings of the personnel officer and affirmed the denial of Neser’s grievance. Neser then filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The circuit court affirmed the

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Deputy Warden's response is affirmed. You failed to provide the necessary documentation to prove Inmate Wells 187589, should have been added to your Do Not House With list prior to your arrival at the Buckley Unit on 11/21/2016. It is your responsibility to ensure that all appropriate documentation is submitted, so your Do Not House With list remains current.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Warden's response is affirmed. The Arizona Department of Corrections has entered into a contract with Century Link to provide telephone service for inmates and their families. The Century Link Company is complying with the terms of their contractual obligation with ADC. ADC inmates are not authorized to have internet access. Therefore, your proposed resolution is denied.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Deputy Bureau Administrator's response is modified. Pursuant to Department Order 802.01, GENERAL INFORMATION:

Harris filed IGO No. 20151179 as a grievance complaint originally pursued in ARP-MCIJ-0427-15. Id. at ¶3(b). Mr. Harris complained of a failure by MCI-J staff to provide him with a “loaner fan” for his “medical issues.” Id. Mr. Woolford avers that, “This grievance was administratively dismissed by the IGO on July 21, 2015, for Mr. Harris’ failure to state a claim upon which administrative relief could and should be granted, on the basis of Mr. Harris’ failure to allege, or to substantiate with appropriate documentation, that he had a medical need for a “loaner fan” as evidenced by a medical order requiring that he be provided with same.” Id. All attached records have been certified as true and accurate copies. Exhibit 6, Declaration of MCI-J Litigation Coordinator, Correctional Case Management Supervisor Nichole R.

Darlene submitted an appeal and grievance complaint to UnitedHealthcare and calls to check status. She is requesting a reimbursement for bills that were paid over the $4,900 limit of out-of-pocket expenses. Stephanie N., a D-SNP agent, needs to research Darlene’s complaint and provide her status. This lesson will guide you through the process.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Warden's response is affirmed. Pursuant to Department Order 803 INMATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Warden's response is affirmed. Time Computation staff at Central Office has audited your file and determined that you were denied parole/home arrest on 10/31/2016. You are eligible to be reheard in 12 months. You have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate your claim that timeframes were not adhered to.

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Deputy Bureau Administrator's response is affirmed. Pursuant to DEPARTMENT ORDER 903 INMATE WORK ACTIVITES

Your grievance appeal has been reviewed at Central Office and the Warden’s response is affirmed. Pursuant to DEPARTMENT ORDER 905 INMATE TRUST ACCOUNT/MONEY SYSTEM

902.12 LEGAL PHONE CALLS - Inmates who have retained counsel may make legal phone calls in accordance with the following:

This appeal arises out of an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirming the decision of the Board of Appeals (“Board”) of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“DLLR”) to deny appellant’s, Gallen Floyd’s (“Floyd’s”), application for unemployment insurance benefits. Floyd contends that the Board found he was terminated due to gross misconduct in want of substantial evidence to support its conclusion. Additionally, Floyd avers the Board erroneously considered hearsay evidence in violation of procedural due process.

Courts will allow some restrictions on a prisoner’s access to legal resources in order to accommodate legitimate administrative concerns, such as maintaining security and internal order, preventing the introduction of contraband, preventing the domination of the library by regular users, and observing budgetary constraints. In the absence of a legitimate administrative concern, however, prisoners may not be hindered from gaining access to the judicial process. Inmates who have been denied access to legal materials have not necessarily suffered a constitutional deprivation when they are confined for only a short period of time.