Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Cecil
|
|
Last Name
|
Roberts
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/2/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1140-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
LGB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 2-Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension; Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Aglinsky v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-256 (Oct. 27, 1997); Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Womack v. Dep’t of Admin., Docket No. 93-ADMN-430 (Mar. 30, 1994); Perdue v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-050 (Feb. 4, 1994); Twigg v. Hercules Corp., 185 W. Va. 155, 406 S.E.2d 52 (1990); Comfort v. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2013-1459-CONS (Apr. 18, 2013); Hamilton v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-1785-DHHR (Sept. 6, 2012); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Smith v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-0799-DHHR (Sept. 6, 2012); McCoy v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 98-DOH-399 (June 18, 1999); McFadden v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 94-HHR-428 (Feb. 17, 1995); Young v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0540-DOC (Nov. 13, 2009); Massey v. W. Va. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Docket No. 99-PSC-313 (Dec. 13, 1999)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Suspension; Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy; Random Drug Test; Hearsay; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was dismissed from his employment as a Transportation Worker 2 – Equipment Operator for testing positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines during a follow-up random drug test. In an earlier random test, Grievant tested positive for the same prohibited substances, and received a five-day suspension. Respondent established that the urine test was conducted in accordance with established testing procedures. Further, the Medical Review Officer provided credible expert testimony to refute Grievant’s claim that the only possible basis for the test result was his use of a prescribed medication, CONTRAVE. Accordingly, Respondent demonstrated good cause for Grievant’s dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
Back to Results
Search Again