Database Search Result Details

First Name Jared
Last Name White
Decision Date 11/21/2017
Docket Number 2017-1174-DOT
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Highway Engineer in Training
Topics Suspension; Representation
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it was justified in suspending Grievant for three days without pay. Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence his claim that Respondent denied him representation at a meeting.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W.Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)
Related Cases Ramey v. W. Va. Dep't of Health, Docket No. H-88-005 (Dec. 6, 1988); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); 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); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf & the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Dep’t, Docket No. 2010-1306-CONS (Nov. 8, 2010)
Keywords Suspension; Time Sheets; Falsified; Representation; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Grievant appealed to Kanawha County 1/10/2018, Civil Action #18-AA-5 (Bloom)
Supreme Court
Synopsis Respondent charged Grievant with falsifying time sheets to indicate he was working when he was not, and imposed a three-day suspension without pay for the same. Grievant denied Respondent’s claims, and argued that his time was reported accurately. Grievant also argued that Respondent denied him his right to representation at a meeting with his supervisor, and that Respondent did not give him the required notice prior to the start of his suspension. Respondent proved its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Grievant failed to prove his claim that he was denied representation at the meeting with his supervisor, and failed to prove his claim that he was denied the required notice of his suspension. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again