Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Matthew
|
|
Last Name
|
Epling
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/15/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0954-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority/Southern Regional Jail
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO IV Sergeant
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant’s misconduct is enough to justify his dismissal from employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)(2)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance & Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002); Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988); Redfearn v. Dep't of Labor, 58 MSPR 307 (1993); Wiley v. W. Va. Div. of Nat'l Res., Parks & Recreation, Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (Mar. 26, 1988); Hunt v. W. Va. Bur. of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 97- BEP-412 (Dec. 31, 1997); Golden v. Bd. of Educ., 169 W. Va. 63, 285 S.E.2d 665 (1981); Thurmond v. Steele, 159 W.Va. 630 at 634, 225 S.E.2d 210 at 212 (1976); Waite v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 161 W. Va. 154, 241 S.E.2d 164 (1977)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Insubordination; Misconduct; Bullying a Co-Worker; Facebook Comments; Employee Code of Conduct; Social Media Policy; Due Process Rights; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 10/13/17, CA #17-AA-76 (Kaufman); Affirmed, 3/29/18
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed at Southern Regional Jail as a Correctional Officer IV with the rank of sergeant, and served as a supervisor. Grievant was dismissed from employment for violations of Respondent’s code of conduct and social media policies, insubordination, and dishonesty in his predetermination conference. Grievant asserts that Respondent failed to prove the charges against Grievant as its witnesses were not credible, that Respondent’s investigation was improper; that Grievant did not have a previous disciplinary history, that Grievant was not trained on the policy, that disciplinary action was not warranted under the policy; that Respondent failed to follow progressive discipline, that Respondent violated Grievant’s due process rights, and that the disciplinary action was disproportional. Respondent proved it had good cause to dismiss Grievant from employment when, as a supervisor, he violated multiple policies, was insubordinate, and was dishonest and belligerent when confronted about his misconduct. Respondent proved there was a rational nexus between Grievant’s employment and his social media conduct. Grievant’s due process rights were not violated. Grievant failed to prove mitigation of the penalty was warranted. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again