Related Cases
|
Ramey v. W. Va. Dep't of Health, Docket No. H-88-005 (Dec. 6, 1988); Petry v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-20-380 (Mar. 18, 1997); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); Sloan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 661, 600 S.E.2d 554, 558 (2004); Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Pine v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-066 (May 12, 1995); Lanehart v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-23-235 (Dec. 29, 1995); Perdue v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-050 (Feb. 4, 1994); Burchell v. Bd. of Trustees, Marshall Univ., Docket No. 97-BOT-011 (Aug. 29, 1997); Kennedy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2009-1443-DHHR (March 11, 2010), aff’d, Kan. Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 10-AA-73 (June 9, 2011); Warner v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-409 (Nov. 18, 2008); Miller v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-501 (Sept. 30, 1997); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996), aff’d, Kan. Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 97-AA-17 (June 4, 1998); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep’t, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990)
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Economic Service Worker. Respondent received a report from a county prosecutor that Grievant was engaging in misconduct involving communications with inmates at a regional jail. Respondent referred the matter for investigation through the Office of Inspector General. The investigation found nothing to substantiate the claims of the county prosecutor. However, the Office of Inspector General found other issues with Grievant’s conduct in the workplace. Respondent charged Grievant with a number of infractions, including policy violations and criminal conduct, suspended her without pay pending further investigation, and ultimately terminated her employment. Grievant denied all of the charges brought against her. The Grievance Board has no authority to make any rulings on the criminal allegations; therefore, such are not addressed herein. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant violated DHHR Policy Memorandum 2108 “Employee Conduct,” the Employee Confidentiality Statement, that Grievant included incorrect information on her applications for certain public assistance benefits, and that Grievant improperly used the food stamp benefits of another for her personal use. As such, Respondent proved that there existed good cause for Grievant’s dismissal. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.
|