Database Search Result Details

First Name William
Last Name Conley III
Decision Date 2/16/2016
Docket Number 2016-0399-MAPS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Corrections/Huntington Work Release Center
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Correctional Officer II
Topics Termination; Dismissal
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant engaged in misconduct that justified his dismissal.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code ST. R. § 143-1-10.1(a) (2008)
Related Cases Bonnell v. W. Va. Dep't of Corrections, Docket No. 89-CORR-163 (Mar. 8, 1990); Roberts v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0958-DHHR (Mar. 13, 2009); Bush v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2008-1489-DOT (Nov. 12, 2008); Cosner v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Livingston v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0770-DHHR (Mar. 21, 2008); Lott v. Div. Juvenile Serv., Docket No. 99-DJS-278 (Dec. 16, 1999); Hammond v. Div. of Veteran’s Affairs, Docket No. 2009-0161-MAPS (Jan. 7, 2009); McCoy v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 98-DOH-399 (June 18, 1999); Nicholson v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 99-HHR-299 (Aug. 31, 1999); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); 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); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001)
Keywords Probationary Employee; Dismissal; Misconduct; Suspension; Prank; Arbitrary and Capricious; Training
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant, a probationary employee, was dismissed from his position as a Correctional Officer II for alleged misconduct. Grievant denies Respondent’s claims, and argues that dismissal was improper. Respondent demonstrated that Grievant engaged in unprofessional conduct, and encouraged two inmates in his charge to violate the facility rules in order to orchestrate a prank on another correctional officer, and that Grievant’s dismissal was justified. Therefore, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again