Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Beverly
|
|
Last Name
|
Crews
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/14/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0344-DVA
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Veterans Assistance
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Director of Nursing
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved that Grievant created a hostile environment or was insubordinate.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 146-1-12.3(a); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(o)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d 579 (1985); Bd. of Educ. of the County of Mercer v. Wirt, 192 W. Va. 568, 453 S.E.2d 402 (1994); Catalina v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-0885-DHHR (Aug. 11, 2011); § 6C-2-2(o); Carper v. Clay County Health Dep’t, Docket No. 2012-0235-ClaCH (July 15, 2013); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-01-154 (Apr. 8, 1994); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, at 22, (1993); Rogers v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2009-0685-MAPS (Apr. 23, 2009); Napier v. Stratton, 204 W. Va. 415, 513 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1998); Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W. Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995); Graley v. W. Va. Parkways Economic Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 99-PEDTA-406 (Oct. 31, 2000); Kearney v. Div. of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 2016-0353-DEP (Jun. 13, 2016)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Hostile Work Environment; Insubordination; Unnecessary Touching; Due Process Rights; Reprisal
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent issued Grievant a two-day unpaid suspension for violating the DOP Prohibited Workplace Harassment Policy, by repeatedly and unnecessarily touching her subordinates in a way that made them uncomfortable. Respondent also alleged that Grievant was guilty of insubordination for continuing to unnecessarily touch her subordinates after being directed to stop.
Grievant argues that the suspension was in retaliation for her filing a separate grievance, violated the rule related to predetermination meetings and that she did not violate the DOP policy.
Respondent proved that it had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the discipline which was not a pretext for nefarious conduct, and that it was in compliance with the DOP rule related to predetermination meetings. Respondent also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant’s unwanted touching was sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment and the Grievant was insubordinate.
|
Back to Results
Search Again