| First Name | Stacy |
| Last Name | Johnson |
| Decision Date | 12/22/2017 |
| Docket Number | 2017-2504-CONS |
| ALJ | BLG |
| Respondent | Division of Highways |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Personnel Specialist |
| Topics | Hostile Work Environment, Bullying, Work Schedule, Merit Increase |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant’s supervisor engaged in bullying, harassment, or created a hostile work environment. Whether Grievant proved her work schedule was changed and she was denied a merit increase in retaliation for filing a grievance. |
| Outcome | Granted/Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-1-2(a), 6C-1-2(g), 6C-1-2(h), 6C-1-2(d), 6C-1-3, 6C-1-3(a), 6C-1-4, 6C-2-2(l), 6C-2-2(o) |
| Related Cases | Howell v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 89-DHS-72 (Nov. 29, 1990); 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); Lanehart v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-088 (June 13,1997); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, at 22, (1993); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998); Napier v. Stratton, 204 W. Va. 415, 513 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1998); and Cook v. Div. of Nat'l Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010) |
| Keywords | Hostile Work Environment; Bullying; Harassment; Supervisor; Retaliation; Yelling; Inappropriate Behavior; Merit Increase; Work Schedule |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant alleged that her supervisor has engaged in harassment and bullying, and created a hostile work environment. Grievant demonstrated that her supervisor has raised her voice to Grievant in an inappropriate manner, and made comments to Grievant which should not have been made in the presence of other employees. However, not every action documented by Grievant was inappropriate behavior for someone who is Grievant’s supervisor, and Grievant’s rendition of events points, in many instances, to unreasonable expectations by Grievant, and a lack of facts. Respondent has taken steps to try to improve the situation, but is limited in what it can do. Respondent is directed, however, to take further steps to assure that Grievant’s supervisor is made aware that she is not to raise her voice to Grievant, that she is not to make comments regarding her work or attire to Grievant in the presence of other employees, and that she needs to reevaluate how she manages her employees. As to Grievant’s Whistle-blower claims, Grievant did not meet her burden of proof, nor did she demonstrate that she was entitled to a merit increase, that her work schedule was improperly changed, or that her supervisors cannot require her to attend status meetings. Accordingly, this grievance is GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART. |