| First Name | Jeannise |
| Last Name | Greco |
| Decision Date | 11/22/2017 |
| Docket Number | 2016-1880-CONS |
| ALJ | BLG |
| Respondent | Monongalia County Health Department |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Nutritionist I |
| Topics | Harassment, Bullying, Retaliation, Discrimination, Abuse of Power |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent proved the charges against Grievant, and whether Grievant proved the allegations of retaliation, harassment, bullying, and discrimination, and whether she proved that her evaluation was inaccurate. |
| Outcome | Granted/Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d), 6C-2-2(l), 6C-2-2(o), 6C-2-6, 29-6A-5(b) |
| Related Cases | Jones v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Cook v. Div. of Nat’l Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010); Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997); Moreland v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 96-BOT-462 (Aug. 29, 1997); Johnson v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 98-HHR-302 (Mar. 18, 1999); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, at 22, (1993); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998); Rogers v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2009-0685-MAPS (Apr. 23, 2009); Napier v. Stratton, 204 W. Va. 415, 513 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1998); Fairmont Specialty Servs., [v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm’n, 206 W. Va. 86, 522 S.E.2d 180 (1999)], Kinzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir. 1997); Frymier v. Higher Educ. Policy Comm., 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007) |
| Keywords | Harassment; Bullying; Verbal Warning; Evaluation; Retaliation; Hostile Work Environment; Supervision |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | Respondent appealed to Kanawha County 12/21/2017, Civil Action #17-AA-98 (Webster); Affirmed 3/14/2022 |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant received a verbal warning for confronting a co-worker in an inappropriate manner, and was given a corrective action plan. Respondent demonstrated that the verbal warning was justified. Grievant challenged her evaluation, and asserted that she was being retaliated against for filing a grievance, that she was being harassed, bullied, and subjected to a hostile work environment, and discriminated against, citing a number of incidents. Generally, the incidents cited by Grievant were instances where she was simply being supervised. Grievant did not prove any of her claims, except for her claim that she did not counsel a client outside her office. The grievance is GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART. |