Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Dawn
|
|
Last Name
|
Paxton
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/18/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0421-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Motor Vehicles
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Office Assistant III
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent established a valid basis for terminating Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-14.3; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.02 and 12.03
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, (1985); Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d 579 (1985); Conley v. Div. of Corrections, Docket No. 00-CORR-109 (June 30, 2000); Ferrell v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 00-DOH-237 (Dec. 22, 2000)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Attendance Issues; Unauthorized Leave; Due Process; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Office Assistant III. Respondent terminated Grievant for failing to report to work at the expiration of a leave of absence. Grievant challenges her dismissal. Grievant is aware there are rules and regulations governing attendance and absences from the workplace. Unauthorized leave from the workplace is sanctionable conduct. Grievant was aware of the disputed conduct, notice of the charges, explanation of Respondent’s interpretation, and was provided an opportunity to respond. Applicable policies permit the actions exercised by Respondent. The undersigned does not conclude, in the circumstances of this matter, that Respondent’s actions were unlawful. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again