year. Although there is evidence of when this position was posted and filled, Respondent has not unequivocally established when Grievant learned of this personnel action, or would have inevitably become aware of such action. Therefore, Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the portion of the grievance which alleges that this position was improperly created, structured, or filled was not filed within 15 days of the time when Grievant became aware of the facts and circumstances which she is challenging through this grievance. See Hale v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-315 (Jan. 25, 1996). See generally, Spahr v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., 182 W. Va. 726, 391 S.E.2d 739 (1990).

One reason why there is no evidence to clearly establish when Grievant became aware of the status and qualifications of the person who filled this position is that she did not make application for this position during any of the four times it was posted. Based upon these circumstances, Respondent has also challenged Grievant's standing to grieve these matters. An employer who asserts that a grievant does not have standing to pursue her grievance has raised an affirmative defense and, accordingly, has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Barber v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0001-MerEd (Aug. 26, 2008); Sanders v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 06-38-430 (May 10, 2007). See Lewis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-20-554 (May 27, 1998). It is well established that a school employee does not have standing to challenge a personnel decision involving the propriety of a posting or the filling of a position where she did not apply for the position. See Barber, supra; Sanders, supra. Likewise, there