Database Search Result Details

First Name Mary
Last Name Byrd
Decision Date 8/8/2017
Docket Number 2017-0769-DHHR
ALJ RLR
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Health Service Assistant
Topics Verbal Reprimand
Primary Issues Whether Grievant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to the charge of a verbal reprimand.
Outcome Granted
Statutes
Related Cases Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d 579 (1985); Barker v. Hardway, 238 F. Supplement 228 (W. Va. 1968); Edwards v. Berkeley County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-02-234 (Nov. 28, 1989); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, (1985); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Nadler v. West Virginia Univ., Docket No. 05-HE-455 (June 22, 2006)
Keywords Verbal Reprimand; Memorandum; Due Process; Predetermination Meeting
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Respondent appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 9/22/2017; Civil Action No. 17-AA-74; Judge Bloom; Reversed by Final Order entered 3/2/2018
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant’s supervisor issued a disciplinary memorandum to Grievant in August 2016, in which she reviewed an incident involving Grievant’s failure to do four assigned hall walks and fifteen minutes checks which Grievant was scheduled to complete. The nurse supervisor did not speak with Grievant concerning her version of events prior to placing the memorandum documenting the verbal warning in her personnel file. Respondent’s position is that the subsequent Legal Aid investigation gave Grievant an opportunity to be heard on the issue of discipline. The failure of the supervisor to address her concerns with Grievant prior to issuing what is essentially a disciplinary letter is in violation of the most basic right of due process. This grievance is granted.

Back to Results Search Again