Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nikole
|
|
Last Name
|
Kidd
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/5/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1874-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Social Service Worker 2
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the termination of Grievant’s probationary employment was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-10.1.a; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-2.a.2
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cosner v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hosp., Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Bonnell v. W. Va. Dep't of Corr., Docket No. 89-CORR-163 (Mar. 8, 1990); Powell v. Brown, 160 W. Va. 723, 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977); Bailey v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-389 (Dec. 20, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Probationary Employee; Training Courses; Travel Policy; Job Performance; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was a probationary employee in the Social Services Worker 2 classification. She was required to attend training sessions before entering her duties on a full performance basis. Grievant was assigned to the Putnam County DHHR offices’ but the training took place in Flatwoods, West Virginia. Grievant was late arriving at the training on at least one day and fell asleep at various times throughout the session and during the final examination. Grievant had requested that she be allowed to stay in a motel during the courses of these trainings due to the distance she had to travel to attend. Her supervisor denied this request even though Grievant was traveling nearly twice the distance required by the travel policy for a participant to stay overnight. In spite of the long hours and driving which caused her sleeping difficulties, Grievant passed the comprehensive test at the end of the training. Grievant proved the only time that her performance lapsed was caused by Respondent’s failure to follow its own policy. It was arbitrary and capricious for Respondent to terminate Grievant’s employment for performance lapses caused by its own agents.
|
Back to Results
Search Again