Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
John
|
|
Last Name
|
Thackston
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/22/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2016-1068-CU
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Concord University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Admissions Counselor
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had proper cause to terminate Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(3)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Kennedy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2009-1443-DHHR (Mar. 11, 2010), aff’d, Kan. Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 10-AA-73 (June 9, 2011); Graley v. W. Va. Parkways Economic Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991); Casto v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., Docket No. 00-DOE-143 (Aug. 28, 2000); Stover v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-26-078 (Sept. 25, 1995); Orr v. Crowder, 315 S.E.2d 593 (W. Va. 1983); Alderman v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ., 223. W. Va. 431, 441, 675 S.E.2d 907, 917 (2009); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Suspension; Job Responsibilities; Gross Insubordination; Due Process; Credibility; Hearsay; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Concord University as an Admissions Counselor. Grievant was terminated from his position for persistent insubordination, regular and intentional obstruction and/or disruption of University operations. The scope of Grievant’s employment is of dispute, nevertheless, defying the reasonable orders of his superiors, and engaging in prohibited activities is actionable conduct.
Respondent informed Grievant that his behavior was unacceptable and that failure to modify it would be interpreted as insubordination and subject him to disciplinary action including termination. Respondent communicated reasonable expectations and Grievant was aware of Respondent’s expectations. Respondent established grounds for disciplinary action. Grievant repeatedly circumvented and disrupted the anticipated operations of Respondent. Respondent choose to terminate employment, considering the totality of the circumstances, termination of Grievant’s employment was not excessive and mitigation of the disciplinary action taken is not required. This Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again