Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Edward
|
|
Last Name
|
Mucklow
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/9/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0903-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Juvenile Services
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Correctional Counselor I
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant failed to meet acceptable performance standard thereby justifying his suspension without pay.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(3)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Ramey v. W. Va. Dep't of Health, Docket No. H-88-005 (Dec. 6, 1988); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Kennedy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2009-1443-DHHR (March 11, 2010), aff’d, Kan. Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 10-AA-73 (June 9, 2011); Warner v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-409 (Nov. 18, 2008); Miller v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health 7 Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-501 (Sept. 30, 1997); Harry v. Marion County Bd. of Educ., Docket Nos. 95-24-575 & 96-24-111 (Sept. 23, 1996); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep’t, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Performance Standards; Hearsay; Knife; Predetermination
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Correctional Counselor I. Respondent suspended Grievant for five days without pay for “failing to meet acceptable performance standards” by being in possession of a pocket knife while at work, and for asking a juvenile “if he had been smoking a crack pipe.” Grievant denies being in possession of the knife and denies making the statement to the juvenile. Grievant argues that suspension was improper. Respondent failed to meet its burden of proving its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this grievance is GRANTED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again